5 CLOSED
STACKS
m
NT IMPORW/'JnON CENTER
IARY
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE
BOOK
Nol In be lakcii from llic Library
DfcC 1 2 **
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
" I II Ml I
3 1223 05718 2900
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013
http://archive.org/details/5calendarmeetingo1992sanf
S10-^ A D0CUMPNT.9 DEPT.
#Q, € A L E N D A R — Anient NOV 9 1992
\\\<\t
MEETING OF SA N FRANCISCO
FINANCE COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY
<£ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL
PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND MIGDEN
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HALLINAN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate
item.
(a) File 101-91-38.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Public Library, in the amount of $106,898, for geotechnical services during
construction. (Public Library)
(Cont'd from 10/28/92)
ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $117,588 recommended. Filed.
(b) File 101-90-36.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Department of Parking and Traffic, in an amount totalling $525,148 ($28,671 to
City Planning Department for environmental review costs and $496,477 for
identified hazardous waste clean-up costs) at the new San Francisco General
Hospital parking garage. (Department of Parking and Traffic)
ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting.
(c) File 132-92-3.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Arts
Commission, in the amount of $29,400, for consultant services. (Arts
Commission)
ACTION: Release of $29,400 recommended. Filed.
REGULAR CALENDAR
2. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden)
(Cont'd from 10/21/92)
ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting.
3. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting.
4. File 38-92-25 . [Gift Acceptance] Resolution accepting one gift valued at $5,480,
from Wells Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park Department
Summer Activities Brochure. (Recreation and Park Department)
(Cont'd from 10/28/92)
ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting.
File 64-92-24 . [Lease of Real Property] Resolution authorizing a new lease of real
property at 10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 260, for the Mayor's Office of Children,
Youth and Their Families. (Real Estate Department)
ACTION: Amended on page 1, line 4, after "families", by adding "retroactive to
October 1, 1992". Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing a
new lease of real property at 10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 260, for the
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families; retroactive to
October 1, 1992."
File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street;
companion measure to File 172—92—15. (Chief Administrative Officer)
ACTION: Recessed to November 9, 1992, at 12:00 noon.
3 1223 05718 2900
File 172-92-15 . [Agreement] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution and
delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, (including certain
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of
agreement for purchase and sale agreement of real estate, a facilities lease
(including certain indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including
certain indemnities contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the
distribution of an official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County
of San Francisco certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series
1993; authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to
submit budgets for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of
participation; and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all
in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property;
companion measure to File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer)
ACTION: Recessed to November 9, 1992, at 12:00 noon.
8. File 65-92-11 . [Lease of Property] Ordinance authorizing and approving lease of
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (southeast Community Facility,
northwest corner of Phelps Street and Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco
Community College District. (Real Estate Department)
ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to the Call of the Chair.
9. Fiie 124-92-9 . [Parking Meters] Ordinance amending Traffic Code by amending
Section 32.8.12 thereof, to remove the parking facility at 1350 Bush Street from
those off-street parking sites on which parking meters may be used. (Parking
Authority)
(Transferred from Economic and Social Policy Committee 10/27/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Recommended.
10. File 161-92-7 . [South of Market Survey Area] Resolution amending Resolution No.
177-90, designating and describing the South of Market Survey Area by adding
additional Land to said survey area. (Redevelopment Agency)
(Transferred from Economic and Social Policy Committee 10/27/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Recommended.
7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS
206 SFPL 11/22/00 32
SF
CITY AND COUNTY
*&
fP^^fic LiBrary, (Documents CDept.
SVFlftQ Qerry %gtk
OF SAN FRANCISCO
ARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
November 2, 1992
TO: "Finance Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst Ac**.
etjJeTi-
/«*i
SUBJECT: November 4, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
D0Cl iMPMTsnEPT.
NOV 3 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Item la - File 101-91-38.4
Note: This item was continued at the October 28, 1992 Finance Committee
Meeting.
Department: Public Library S£^ fa 1
Item: Request for release of reserved funds for geotechnical
services during construction of the new Main Library
Amount:
$106,898
Source of Funds: 1988 Library Improvement Bonds
Description: The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a
supplemental appropriation (File 101-91-38) in the amount of
$4,015,003 for project services related to the construction of
the new Main Library. Of the $4,015,003 appropriated, a total
of $1,529,805 was placed on reserve pending selection of
contractors and determination of the MBE/WBE status of the
contractors and contract cost details. Of the $1,529,805
originally placed on reserve, a total of $549,772 has previously
been released by the Finance Committee, leaving a balance of
$980,033 on reserve.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
The balance of $980,033 in reserved funding includes $120,000
for geotechnical services consulting. This item is a request to
release $106,898 of the $120,000 reserve for geotechnical
services.
The geotechnical services consultant would 1) monitor the
excavation activities for the new Main Library to determine
that the actual soil conditions encountered during excavation
are compatible with the design requirements by performing
and evaluating soil density tests, 2) review and approve the
shoring design submitted by the construction contractor, 3)
observe excavation in preparation for the foundation and 4)
monitor the pile driving associated with shoring and
foundation work.
The geotechnical consulting firm of Geo/Resource
Consultants, Inc., was retained by the construction
management contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates,
Inc., as a subcontractor to assist in preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report. According to Mr. Russ Abel
of the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture,
in order to maintain continuity of professional responsibility
throughout the construction of the new Main Library, it is
desirable to utilize the same geotechnical consultant for all
phases of the planning, design and construction of the new
Main Library. Therefore, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
will continue as the geotechnical consultant subcontractor
under the prime contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg for the new
Main Library construction project.
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., is a local business but is not
an MBE or WBE firm. Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., has
estimated the costs for their services totaling $106,898, as
follows:
Professional Services:
Principal Engineer (90 hours @ $135 per hour) $12,150
Project Engineer (220 hours @ $70 per hour) 15,400
Staff Engineer (548 hours @ $65 per hour) 35,620
Support Staff (74 hours @ $40 per hour) 2,960
Other Professional Services 3.050
Total-Professional Services $69,180
Sub-Subcontracts:
Shoring Review and Soil Observation $20,000
Indicator Piles 8.000
Total-Subcontracts 28.000
Total - Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. $97,180
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
O'Brien-Kreitzberg administration of
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
subcontract (10 percent per master agreement) $ 9.718
Total Requested Release of Reserve $106,898
Comment: Mr. Abel was not able to provide the Budget Analyst with
details of the Other Professional Services of $3,050 or the Sub-
Subcontracts costs totally $28,000 when this item was first
heard on October 28, 1992 and, therefore, the item was
continued at Mr. Abel's request in order to obtain the details
required. However, as of the writing of this report for the
November 4, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting, Mr. Abel still
could not provide the Budget Analyst with the cost details.
This release of reserved funds should be continued to the next
Finance Committee meeting on November 18, 1992.
Recommendation: Continue the proposed release of reserved funds until
November 18, 1992.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item lb - File 101-90-36.2
Department: Department of Parking and Traffic
Item: Release of reserve for the new San Francisco General
Hospital parking garage.
Amount: $525,148
Source of Funds: Off-Street Parking Funds
Description:
Comment:
Recommendation:
The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation
authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$1,000,000, for the Department of Parking and Traffic, to be
used to pay for hazardous waste removal and environmental
review fees in connection with the proposed new San
Francisco General Hospital Garage. At the same time, the
Board of Supervisors placed the entire $1,000,000 on reserve
pending the Department of Parking and Traffic's selection of
contractors and determination of hours, hourly rates and the
MBE/WBE status of the contractors (File 101-90-36). Of the
$1,000,000, $474,852 has previously been released from
reserve, leaving a balance of $525,148 still on reserve. The
$474,852 previously released from reserve was used to pay for
contract services for the performance of the Environmental
Impact Review ($162,850) and for contract services for the
provision of hazardous waste removal ($312,002).
The Department of Parking and Traffic is now requesting
that the remaining balance of $525,148 be released from
reserve. The Department of Parking and Traffic reports that
$28,671 of the $525,148 would be used to pay for the City
Planning Department's environmental review costs and the
remaining $496,477 would be used to pay for additional
contract services for the provision of hazardous waste
removal.
The Department of Parking and Traffic has requested that
this item be continued to the Finance Committee meeting on
November 18, 1992, in order to allow the Department
additional time to provide budget details for the Department
of City Planning's costs and the hazardous waste removal
contract services.
Continue this item to the Finance Committee meeting on
November 18, 1992, as requested by the Department of
Parking and Traffic.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item lc - File 132-92-3.1
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Arts Commission
Release of reserve for consultant services
$29,400
National Endowment for the Arts grant
The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation
authorizing the Arts Commission to apply for, accept
and expend a Federal grant, in the amount of $30,000,
from the National Endowment for the Arts (File 132-92-
3). This grant was to be used primarily to fund
consulting services to assist in the development of a long
range planning process for the Arts Commission and its
programs. At the same time that the Board of
Supervisors approved this legislation, it placed $29,400 of
the $30,000, earmarked for the consulting services, on
reserve pending the Arts Commission providing the
estimated hours, hourly rates, and the MBE/WBE status
of the consultant.
The Arts Commission reports that it issued a Request
for Proposals in June of 1992 and has selected the Arts
Market to provide the necessary consultant services, at a
total cost of $54,763. The $29,400 in grant funds plus
$25,363 in Public Art funds included in the Arts
Commission's 1992-1993 budget, would be used to pay for
these consultant services.
The Arts Market is a woman-owned firm located in
Marion, Massachusetts. This firm is not certified or
registered with the City as a WBE firm. According to
Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs
for the Arts Commission, the Arts Market has two
minority consultants, one of who is a resident of San
Francisco and the other of who is a resident of the City of
Palo Alto, who will serve as members of the team on this
project.
As noted above, the primary purpose of the consultant
services is to provide the Arts Commission with
assistance in the development of a long range plan for
the Arts Commission and its programs. Additionally,
the consultant services will be responsible for the review
and revision of Part 2 of the Arts Policy Plan. Part 1 of
the Arts Policy Plan describes the plan and was adopted
BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
5
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
in 1991 as part of the City's Master Plan. Part 2 of the
Plan provides for the framework for implementing the
goals and actions of the Plan. The specific tasks to be
performed by the Arts Market include the following:
Phasg A (seven months)
1. Identifying and framing issues confronting the
Commission.
2. Meeting with citizen advisory committees and special
focus groups to structure suggestions, needs and
concerns.
3. Researching, reviewing and developing, in
conjunction with Commissioners and staff, agency
priorities, program goals and objectives with timelines
and responsibilities.
4. Reviewing and clarifying the roles and responsibilities
of staff administration and Commission policy making.
5. Researching and developing the structure, purpose
and feasibility of a non-profit fiscal agency which would
complement the goals and objectives of the Arts
Commission.
Phase B (two months)
Providing a written long range plan document for the
Arts Commission based on the above noted tasks.
Phase C (three months)
1. Facilitating meetings with City agencies, arts focus
groups and the Arts Commission to review and prepare
for the adoption of Part 2 of the Arts Policy Plan.
2. Providing written goals and implementation actions
for Part 2 of the Arts Policy Plan.
Ms. Winship advises that the Arts Market will be
reimbursed on the basis of the completion of the above
noted tasks, as opposed to an hourly rate. Arts Market's
projected expenditures for the $54,763, are as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Phase A
On-site Consultant Time
Consultant (72 hours @ $100/hr.) $7,200
Consultant (16 hours @ $50/hr.) 800
Off-site Consultant Time
Consultant (32 hours @ $100/hr.) 3,200
Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) 2,000
Consultant (10 hours @ $75/hr) 750
Consultant (4 hours @ $50/hr.) 200
Consultant (28 hours @ $35/hr.) 980
Subtotal $15,130
Phase B
On-site Consultant Time
Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) $2,000
Consultant (16 hours @ $100/hr.) 1,600
Off-site Consultant Time
Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) 2,000
Consultant (4 hours @ $100/hr.) 400
Consultant (20 hours @ $75/hr) 1,500
Consultant (16 hours @ $35/hr.) jm
Subtotal 8,060
Phase C
On-site Consultant Time
Consultant (16 hours @$125/hr.) $2,000
Consultant (36 hours @ $100/hr.) 3,600
Consultant (44 hours @ $75/hr.) 3,300
Consultant (80 hours @ $50/hr.) 4,000
Off-site Consultant Time
Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) 2,000
Consultant (24 hours @ $35/hr.) 840
Consultant (80 hours @ $30/hr,) 2.400
Subtotal 18,140
funeral Administrative Costs 4,133
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Travel
4 round-trip air fares Boston/San Francisco
@$960
$3,840
3 round-trip air fares Providence/San
Francisco @ $920
2,760
1 round-trip air fare Milwaukee/San
Francisco @ $540
540
Mileage
200
Per diem (14 days @ $140)
.1,960.
Subtotal
$9,300
Total
$54,763
Comments: 1. As reflected in the budget above, $13,433 or 25 percent
of the proposed contract is for travel and general
administrative costs. The remaining $41,330 or 75
percent is for direct consulting services. According to
Ms. Winship, the reason that Arts Market consultants
will be traveling from Milwaukee, Minnesota, Boston,
Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, is that
(1) Arts Market has a branch office in Minneapolis,
Minnesota and (2) Marion, Massachusetts, where the
main office is located, is right on the border of Rhode
Island.
Recommendation:
2. The Arts Policy Plan's goals are to (1) support and
nurture the arts through City leadership, (2) recognize
and sustain the diversity of the cultural expressions of
art in San Francisco, (3) recognize and support
individual artists and arts organization, a combination
that is vital to a thriving arts environment, (4) increase
opportunities for quality arts education, (5) increase
funding support for the arts in San Francisco and (6)
enhance, develop, and protect the physical environment
of the arts in San Francisco.
Approve the proposed release of reserve funds in the
amount of $24,900.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 2 - File 188-92-1
Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting of October 21,
1992.
1. This is a hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation
Districts (M/TID)for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric power.
When this item was last heard by the Finance Committee, on October 21, 1992,
specific questions were asked by the Committee to the Budget Analyst, the Hetch
Hetchy General Manager and the City Attorney. This report addresses those
questions.
2. Chronology of Contract Negotiations - Attachment 1 is a copy of the City
Attorney's memorandum concerning the history of negotiations between the City
and County of San Francisco, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the
Modesto/Turlock Irrigation Districts.
3. The City's Options for Re-negotiation of the Contracts - A separate
memorandum explaining the City's options regarding re-negotiation of the terms
and conditions of the PG&E and M/TID contracts is being prepared by the City
Attorney and Hetch Hetchy. As of the writing of this report, this memorandum is
not available. The Budget Analyst has been informed that the memo will be
transmitted directly to the Finance Committee in advance of the November 4, 1992
hearing.
4. Reconciliation of Financial Information with San Francisco Bav
Guardian newspaper article - The Budget Analyst was directed to analyze data
published in a newspaper article printed in the SF Bay Guardian regarding
historical trends in equity transfers of surplus funds from Hetch Hetchy to the
General Fund and the costs and benefits of transactions between Hetch Hetchy,
PG&E and M/TED over a sixteen-month period beginning in March 1991 and ending
June 1992. This review is discussed below:
Equity Transfers to the General Fund - The graph below provides a
history of transfers to the General Fund for the ten-year period beginning with
fiscal year 1983-84 and ending with the current, 1992-93 fiscal year. The chart
below shows that the graph printed in the Bay Guardian article was substantially
correct. However, the scale of the Bay Guardian chart served to exaggerate the
relative differences between annual transfer amounts by depicting the transfers
over a truncated range of $10 million to $50 million rather than the full range of
zero to $50 million.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
Budget Analyst
9
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Eauitv Transfers to the General Fund bv Fiscal Year (thousands)
Charter Section 6.407 specifies the manner in which surplus funds may be
transferred from utility funds (i.e. Hetch Hetchy and the Water Department) to the
General Fund. Essentially, up to 25% of a preceding fiscal year's surplus may be
transferred to the General Fund after accounting for operations, maintenance and
repair and needed capital acquisitions and improvements. Therefore, equity
transfers to the General Fund do not entirely result from prior year sales of Hetch
Hetchy's hydroelectric power, but also depend on expenditures for operating and
capital costs, other revenue such as the sale of water, and surplus balances from
past years that had not been transferred to the General Fund.
A further complication that must be taken into consideration when reviewing
Hetch Hetchy transfers to the General Fund is of course the effects of recent
drought years on the system's water supply and resulting net revenue from the
generation of hydroelectric power. The chart on the following page shows the
relationships between these factors.
The chart on the next page compares equity transfers from Hetch Hetchy to
the General Fund on a fiscal year basis with prior year (PY) values for net power
revenue (total hydroelectric power sold less the costs of PG&E services such as
transmission expense and capacity reserve costs and the purchase of power
purchased from PG&E in order to meet contractual obligations).
Also shown on the chart are values for Prior Year Natural Flow, a measure of
total inflows, in acre-feet, into the Tuolumne River system. This provides a relative
comparison, on a year-to-year basis, of water supply available to Hetch Hetchy for
reservoir storage and hydroelectric power generation.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
10
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Comparison of Net Power Revenue. Equity Transfers to
General Fund and Water Flow
Water Flow
-,- 6,000
' PY Net Power Revenue
(thousands)
ensamsimnma Equity Transfers (thousands)
■PY Natural Flow (1,000 Acre-
feet)
- - 5,000
- - 4,000
-- 3,000
2,000
1,000
Source data for the two charts shown above and on the preceding page are
displayed below.
PYNet
Power
Equity
PY Natural
Revenue
Transfers
Flow (1,000
Fiscal Yr.
(thousands)
(thousands)
Acre-feet)
1983-84
$60,350
$33,295
4,245
1984-85
$59,552
$31,000
3,243
1985-86
$47,252
$50,000
855
1986-87
$60,069
$46,000
3,286
1987-88
$36,740
$40,000
833
1988-89
$28,665
$25,000
808
1989-90
$27,156
$25,000
1,302
1990-91
$34,967
$15,000
864
1991-92
$18,220
$11,000
1,035
1992-93
$33,592
$22,600
851
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
11
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
5. Costs and Benefits from the Purchase of Supplemental Power from
PG&E to meet M/TID demand - The Finance Committee has directed the Budget
Analyst to reconcile the differences between data reported by the Bay Guardian and
Hetch Hetchy. The Bay Guardian reported that Hetch Hetchy lost approximately
$10.7 million over a sixteen-month period between March 1991 and June 1992.
After conferring with Bay Guardian staff, the Budget Analyst was informed that
their estimate of PG&E bills for services and the purchase of supplemental power
was based on projections, of computed average payments by M/TID for such
purchased power. The Bay Guardian staff then added the cost of capacity reserve
payments to arrive at the $10.7 million loss figure. These calculations are
summarized below:
Bay Guardian Calculations for Period of March 91 to June 92
(in millions)
Calculated cost of Purchased Power from PG&E $ ( 17.3)
Projected M/TED Payments for Purchased Power 12.9
"Sales Loss" $ (4.4)
Mandatory Capacity Reserve Charge (6.3)
Total Loss $(10.7)
In contrast to the Bay Guardian calculations shown above, Hetch Hetchy
reports that during the same sixteen-month period, the City paid PG&E less than
$6.2 million for "supplemental power" to meet the Districts' demands and charged
the M/TID over $6.6 million for the same supplemental power, thereby realizing a
net benefit of over $400,000 instead of the Bay Guardian's calculated "Sales Loss" of
$4.4 million. Hetch Hetchy also reports that Capacity Reserve payments to PG&E
over that same period amounted to $5.98 million, but that this expenditure was
necessary not only to guarantee supplemental power but to provide "firm capacity"
for all power generated by Hetch Hetchy, thereby assuring total revenues from
M/TID of $27.6 million including not only the sale of power purchased from PG&E
but also power generated by Hetch Hetchy itself.
According to Hetch Hetchy, if capacity reserves were not guaranteed by
PG&E, the City would not be able to sell power at firm power rates and therefore
would not have realized total revenues of $27.6 million over this period. Hetch
Hetchy further adds that the contract with PG&E provides "capacity reserve
credits" which reduced supplemental power purchase costs by $7.3 million over the
period analyzed.
The Finance Committee directed the Budget Analyst to review billings from
PG&E and payments by M/TED. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst
has not yet received source data to perform this review.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
12
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
6. Power Market Analysis - The Finance Committee also directed the Budget
Analyst to review any alternative market data or analyses for the services provided
by PG&E to the City and long-term power sales agreements comparable to the
City's contracts with M/TID.
Hetch Hetchy reports that no alternatives exist to the transmission, firming
and other services provided by PG&E to the City. Therefore, they are unable to
provide meaningful data to compare with the PG&E agreement.
Hetch Hetchy consultants, Stone & Webster, Inc. have provided a review of
seven other long term power sales agreements in comparison to the City contracts
with M/TED. The consultants note many factors that make comparisons difficult,
such as the buyer/seller relationships, the years the agreements were initiated, the
terms of the contracts, energy requirements and delivery contingencies. Such
factors can cause variations in power prices of between 5% and 25% according to the
consultants.
Hetch Hetchy's consultants conclude that, while acknowledging these
differences, the City's current price for Class 3 power sold to M/TID of 40 mills per
kilowatt hour ($.04) is at the low end of the market, which ranges from 40 to 50
mills per kilowatt hour. The Budget Analyst notes that this difference between the
M/TID contract and other long term markets remains substantially unchanged from
prior reports by the Budget Analyst, based on surveys performed by Hetch Hetchy's
consultants in 1984 and 1988. In these prior reports, the Budget Analyst concluded
that if the M/TID agreements reflected other market data provided by Hetch
Hetchy's consultants, then the City would realize substantially greater revenues.
Despite the fact that greater revenues could be achieved if the M/TID
agreements were comparable to other long term sales contracts, according to Hetch
Hetchy and the City Attorney, no opportunities exist to modify the existing M/TID
agreements through re-negotiation under the contract terms and conditions.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
13
Attachment 1 - page 1 of 1
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LOUISE H. RENNE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY HALL
WATER SECTION
Thomas M. Berliner
Joshua D. Milstein
John S . Roddy
Christiane Hayashi Trippe
Deputy City Attorneys
(415) 554-4295
MEMORANDUM
DATE :
TO:
THROUGH ;
FROM:
RE:
October 30, 1992
SUPERVISOR JIM GONZALES
Chair, Finance Committee
Board of Superv:
ANSON B. MORAN
General Manage]
Hetch Hetchy Wat^e-i^-^fhd Power
THOMAS M. BERLINERl^^
Deputy City Attorney
History of Negotiations With Pacific Gas & Electric
Company and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation
Districts Concerning Power Sales Contracts
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84)
Pursuant to your request attached is a chronology of events
leading up to the current power sales contracts with PG&E and the
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (sometimes referred to
as MID, TID or collectively as "Districts").
T.M.B.
Enclosure
w/ enc .
Sup. Hallinan
Sup. Migden
Budget Analyst
T. Lakey
1470P/3
14
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO POWER CONTRACTS ^/IlSl "rM MODESTO
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT AMD PACIFIC GAS
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
DATES COMMENTS
1945 City signs contract with PG&E for supplemental
power and support services. (Contract expires
1987, per amendments.)
1973 City signs power sales contracts with Districts.
Sold total output of Hetch Hetchy Project as
"firm" power.
Nov. 1973 OPEC oil crisis escalated market rates. Over
next several years City derived substantial
revenues from PG&E "assigned customers."
1978 City unsuccessfully litigates with Districts to
raise rates for power.
1979 Airlines unsuccessfully sue City re power of PUC
t o set rates.
July, 1980 Hetch Hetchy solicits 15 public agencies for
interest in purchase of Hetch Hetchy power.
1981 Hetch Hetchy consultant, Auslam & Associates,
recommended Districts, Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) as potential customers.
1981-19821/ PG&E informs City that next PG&E contract would
be on same terms as current contract, but without
assigned customers.
1981-1982 City negotiates with Districts on basis of PG&E
representations .
1983 PG&E changes contract parameters and informs City
that if City negotiates firm power sales
contracts, City must pay for firming services.
(See 1981-82.) PG&E elects to contract directly
with Districts for support services.
PG&E discovers failure to escalate rate base from
1973. Cost to PG&E of approximately $4
mi llion/year .
i/ In late 1981 or early 1982, PG&E orally informed Dean
Coffey - exact date unknown.
15
DATES
Attachment 1 - page 1 of 1
COMMENTS
1983
Districts discuss purchase of firm power from
City. Districts will purchase additional power
elsewhere .
Late 1983
Districts contend Hetch Hetchy not firm power so
would pay us "dump power" (5-7 mills). Iletch
Hetchy discusses firming with PG&E. City
negotiates with Districts concerning firm power
rates .
1984 Auslam and Associates' report recommends sale
price of between 30-40 mills/kwh based upon
amounts of power available from Pacific Northwest
and Southwest.
Aug. 1984 MID prepared to sign contract with City; breaks
away from TID. Proposed contract at 4 mills.
Sept. 1984 Rep. Tony Coelho's introduces legislation for TID
to compel City power sales at "cost."
Legislation passes House of Representatives.
Sen. Wilson objects on procedural grounds. City
negotiates with Districts, meets with Rep.
Coelho. Coellio outlines terms for agreement
including: 30-year contract, price of 23 mills,
District priority to power, right to use excess
Hetch Hetchy transmission and capacity, and other
conditions .
Sept. 1984 City and Districts sign "principles."
May, 1985 Board of Supervisors approves 2-1/2 year "Interim
Agreements" with Districts. City to sell bulk of
power above City's municipal needs to Districts
for 30 years, at 36.25 mills (price includes
capacity charge), plus escalation, and other
"Coelho" terms.
June, 1985 Prior contracts with Districts expire. Replaced
by Interim Agreement.
July, 1985 City and Districts sign "Amplified Principles."
Dec. 1987 PG&E 1945 contract, as amended, expires.
Jan. 1988 "Extension Agreement" with Districts becomes
effective. Present agreement with PG&E becomes
effective.
Feb. 1988 Board of Supervisors hearing on power contracts.
April, 1988 Long Term Agreements with Districts become
effective.
1470P/4
16
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 3 - File 100-92-9
This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for
the City and County of San Francisco.
On October 27, 1992 a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office,
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the
following:
Airport Advance - ($25 million) Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport reports that
the airlines are meeting on November 6, 1992 to further discuss this matter.
November 12, 1992 is the deadline for all 19 airlines to individually submit their
approved agreements to the Airport regarding the $25 million advance to the City.
Ms. Gittens indicates that, thus far, ten of the 19 airlines have unofficially agreed to
the proposed arrangements. According to Ms. Gittens, the airlines are currently
considering revisions to the proposed agreement, but as of the writing of this report,
the specific revisions were not available.
PUC Equity Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million) These PUC funds
include equity transfers from the Water Department ($2.5 million), Hetch Hetchy
($2.5 million) and the revenues from the sale of Water Department property to the
Olympic Club ($2.2 million). Ms. Jean Mariani of the Mayor's Office reports that she
will be meeting with the Controller, City Attorney and PUC representatives prior to
the November 4, 1992 Finance Committee meeting and that she will report orally to
the Finance Committee regarding the outcome of these discussions.
Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's
General Fund. However, the City Attorney has raised some questions regarding the
legality of this transfer of funds, and is currently reviewing this issue. The City
Attorney is anticipated to issue an opinion on this matter, in the immediate future.
On October 27, 1992, the Chair of the Finance Committee wrote a letter to
Mayor Jordan requesting that these budget matters proposed by the Mayor as part
of the 1992-93 budget be expedited by the Mayor's Office to enable the City's 1992-
93 budget to be balanced.
The Controller's Office indicates that these matters need to be resolved by
mid-November, 1992, in order to fully capture these revenue transfers by December
31, 1992. Ms. Mariani indicates that if these funds are not available for the 1992-93
General Fund, alternative budget reductions in MUNI and other General Fund
departmental budgets would likely be necessary.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 4 - File 38-92-25
Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of
October 28, 1992.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Description:
Comments:
Recreation and Park Department
Resolution accepting a cash gift of $5,480 from Wells
Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park
Department Summer Activities Brochure.
$5,480
The Recreation and Park Department reports that Wells
Fargo Bank has donated a $5,480 cash gift to fund the
publication of the Department's 1992 summer activities
brochure. The Recreation and Park Department advises
that the $5,480 donation, which has already been accepted
and expended by the Department, helped to fund the
publication of approximately 70,000 brochures, which
were distributed to San Francisco schools, libraries and
community agencies. The total cost of these brochures
was $13,882 with the balance of $8,402 funded by General
Fund monies ($5,402), Pier 39 ($2,000) and McKesson
Foundation ($1,000).
According to Ms. Diane Palacio, of the Recreation and
Park Department, the $5,480 charitable donation by Wells
Fargo Bank represented a good will effort on the part of
the bank.
1. As noted above, the Department has already accepted
and expended the $5,480. Therefore, the proposed
legislation should be amended to authorize the
Department to accept the gift retroactively. Ms. Palacio
advises that the Department did not previously request
authorization from the Board of Supervisors for the
acceptance of this gift due to an unintentional
administrative oversight.
2. The Department is not requesting authorization to
accept the $2,000 from Pier 39 and the $1,000 from
McKesson Foundation because under Administrative
Code Section 10.116, the Board of Supervisors authorizes
City departments to accept cash gifts which do not exceed
$5,000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the
Department to accept the gift retroactively, and approve
the resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 5 - File 64-92-24
Departments:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor
No.ofSq.Ftand
Cost per Month:
Annual Cost:
Term of Lease:
Source of Funds:
Utilities
Provided By:
Comments:
Real Estate
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families
Resolution authorizing a new, four year lease.
Suite 260, 10 United Nations Plaza
Office space for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and
their Families.
Ten United Nations Plaza Associates
$1,875 monthly rent for approximately 1,500 sq. ft. or
approximately $1.25 per sq. ft. per month
$22,500
October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1996 (four years)
1992-93 Children's Fund budget
Lessee - monthly rent includes cost of gas, electricity, water,
scavenger and janitorial
1. The lessor, Ten United Nations Plaza Associates, will
perform site alterations at their own expense in preparation
for the occupancy by the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth
and their Families.
2. According to the terms of the proposed lease, continuation
of the proposed lease beyond the current fiscal year (1992-93)
through September 30, 1996 would be subject to appropriation
of funding for lease payments in the Children's Fund budgets
for those future years.
3. After subtracting the 200 square feet of space occupied by
the conference room, the remaining 1,300 square feet of space
to be leased would provide an average of approximately 217
square feet of space for each of the six staff persons currently
in the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families.
Mr. Phil Aissen of the Real Estate Department reports that
the request for space from the Mayor's Office of Children,
Youth and their Families to the Real Estate Department
indicated that the fiscal year 1992-93 staff would be seven and
would grow to ten by fiscal year 1993-94, in addition to the
need for a conference room to hold meetings with community
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
groups. Based on a staff of ten persons and after deducting
the 200 square feet for the conference room, the average
square feet per staff member would be 130 square feet.
4. Beginning January 1, 1994, the monthly rent shall be
adjusted each calendar year for any increases in certain
operating costs over and above the amounts in the first year of
the lease for work performed at or for the benefit of the
building. Such increases are passed through to all tenants of
the building. The lessee's share of the increases in operating
costs (such as building maintenance and security, insurance
and property taxes) is 2.19 percent of the cost increases based
on the lessee's relative share of space that the lessee occupies
in the building (1,500 square feet divided by the total usable
office space of the building, 68,500 square feet). The City
Attorney's Office has prepared an attachment to the lease
document that lists the operating costs (such as advertising,
promotions, signs that benefit the owner or other tenants and
tax penalties incurred by the lessor due to negligence) that
must be excluded from the operating costs that may be passed
through to the lessee. Mr. Aissen advises that the City's
other leases of space at 10 United Nations Plaza (such as the
Mayor's Office of Housing and the Mayor's Office of
Community Development) include this same provision for the
pass through of increases in certain operating costs.
According to Real Estate, the provision to pass through
increases over and above the amounts of certain operating
costs incurred in the first year of the lease is necessary to
protect the lessor from runaway increases in costs that
benefit the lessee.
5. Prior to July 1, 1992 the single position of the Mayor's
Office of Children, Youth and their Families occupied space
in the Mayor's Office of Community Development offices at 10
United Nations Plaza on a temporary basis until creation of
the Children's Fund and negotiation of a lease for the staff to
administer the Children's Fund. The Mayor's Office of
Children, Youth and their Families has been occupying this
space since July 1, 1992 on a month-to-month temporary
lease basis. As noted above, the proposed lease began on
October 1, 1992. The proposed lease should be amended in
order to authorize the proposed lease retroactively to October
1, 1992.
Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the proposed
lease retroactive to October 1, 1992, and approve the proposed
resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Items 6 and 7 - Files 97-92-61 and 172-92-15
Departments:
Items:
Location:
Purpose of
Purchase:
Seller:
Developer:
No. of Sq. Ft:
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following
provisions:
(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of
an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including
certain indemnities and the release of the seller contained
therein);
(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase
for sale of real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain
indemnities contained therein); (c) a trust agreement
(including certain indemnities contained therein); and (d) an
official statement;
(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting
bids in connection with the City and County of San Francsico
Certificates of Participation (1660 Mission Street Project)
Series 1993;
(4) Authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents
to be charged and to submit budgets for approval;
(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of
the Certificates of Participation; and
(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section
101.1, all in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the
1660 Mission Street property.
File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit,
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street.
1660 Mission Street
To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire
Department permit processes at a single location.
Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to
oversee the asset
The Derringer Group
97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
22
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Total Cost:
Source of Funds:
Description:
$5,700,000
($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11
regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant
improvements)
Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt
service for Certificates of Participation
Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits;
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building
Inspection.
The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core
and shell condition in mid- 1991 and is a six-story steel frame
office building with a one level subterranean garage.
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which
will be used for parking.
The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation.
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The
investors would receive a return on their investment through
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation.
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of
Participation.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
23
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following
categories of fees:
(a) Plan Review Fees;
(b) Building Code Fees;
(c) Public Works fees;
(d) Planning Code fees;
(e) Administrative Code fees.
All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as
follows:
(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through
June 30, 1995;
(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
1995 through June 30, 2000; and
(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
2000 through June 30, 2005.
Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire.
The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following
dollar costs:
(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects,
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second
period; and $9.82 in the third period;
(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000.
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the
third period;
(3) .1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects,
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the
second period; and $430.90 in the third period.
Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees
are consistent with the fees noted above.
BOARD OF SI IPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
24
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr.
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six
floors, which would be used as follows:
First Floor:
to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public
parking; and public information booths where seven
employees would provide information regarding the status of
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code
information, etc.
Second Floor:
to include the permit center and the construction services
center.
Third and Fourth Floor:
to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and
code enforcement sections, including all inspectors.
Fifth Floor:
to include the ad'ministrative offices for the various applicable
departments.
Sixth Floor:
to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.)
2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now
occupying the four different locations noted in the description
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr.
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms,
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
25
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place.
3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop."
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California,
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However,
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency
that would be achieved in San Francsico. Mr. Litchfield
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most
permit applicants who have been in contact with the
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time.
However, there is no documentation as to whether such
applicants, who have been in contact with the various
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for
large construction projects.
4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new
building would accomodate any growth in permit requests in
future years, Mr. Litchfield reports.
5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit
application process would be restructured. Instead of
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with
permit processors to review applications in person. This new
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports.
6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping
employees who provide information to the public. Mr.
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
26
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit
processing functions are located on a number of different
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has
not been provided with any documentation regarding
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services
Center.
7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister,
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall,
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises.
8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate
Harrison of the Superior Court advises.
9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase,
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports.
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of
the State Code.
10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing.
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account.
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
27
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million.
The estimated $3.5 million in tenant improvements would be
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million,
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which
would be repaid from the fee surcharges.
12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The
cost of such improvements would vary based on the
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr.
DeLucchi.
13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price,
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and
related financing institutions invested approximately $17
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street.
14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new
BOARD OF SI JPKRVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
28
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports.
15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed
building purchase.
16. According to Mr. Weiner, the CAO anticipates
introducing an Amendment of the Whole for the proposed
ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the CAO to
negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to an
underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless
the market changes significantly over the next few months.
Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports
doumenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15)
(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 8 -File 65-92-11
Departments:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft and
Cost per Month:
% Increase Over
Prior Yean
Term of Lease:
Comments:
Real Estate
San Francisco Clean Water Program
Ordinance authorizing and approving a renewal lease of
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (Southeast
Community Facility, Northwest corner of Phelps Street and
Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco Community College
District to operate a satellite campus of the City College of San
Francisco
1800 Oakdale Avenue, commonly known as the Southeast
Community Center
Space for a skills center consisting of classrooms, a library
and other educational facility support services for the San
Francisco Community College District for use as a satellite
campus of the City College of San Francisco
San Francisco Community College District
$13,104.18 monthly rent for approximately 35,800 sq. ft. or
approximately $0.37 per sq. ft. per month
Annual Revenue: $157,250
None - The Real Estate Department states that because of
budget constraints, the San Francisco Community College
District cannot afford an increase in rent for fiscal year 1992-
93 (the proposed lease does provide for three percent annual
increases in rent beginning July 1, 1993).
From date of lease execution through June 30, 1995 (two years
and seven months if lease is finally approved effective
December 1, 1992). Presently, the lease is on a month-to-
month basis.
1. The San Francisco Community College District has
occupied the Southeast Community Center since 1986 under
a five year lease that expired on October 30, 1991 and on a
month-to-month basis since October 31, 1991.
2. On July 1 of each year beginning in 1993 the rental amount
will be increased by three percent.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
3. A provision of the proposed lease requires the Clean Water
Program to make modifications to the Southeast Community
Center space that is occupied by the City College to meet
disabled access requirements as required by the American
Disabilities Act. The Clean Water Program estimates the
cost of such improvements will total approximately $48,000.
Funding for the improvements will be included in the 1993-94
Clean Water Program budget. The San Francisco
Community College District will not reimburse any of these
costs which are the responsibility of the building owner.
4. The City will provide utility services including gas, water,
electricity, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, parking,
landscaping, and sewer. The San Francisco Community
College District will continue to reimburse the City for 85
percent of the total utility services costs for the whole
building. The 85 percent rate for reimbursement was
negotiated based on the 35,800 square feet of space occupied by
the City College compared to the total area of the Southeast
Community Center of approximately 42,500 square feet
(approximately 85 percent). The Head Start Child Care
Program and the Senior Escort Program occupy the
remaining 6,700 square feet of space at the center. The San
Francisco Community College District reimbursed the City
$12,448 for water and sewage service in fiscal year 1991-92,
according to Mr. Alex Pitcher of the Clean Water Program.
Mr. Pitcher was not able to provide the amount of
reimbursements for electricity or other utilities, as of the
writing of this report. The San Francisco Community
College District is wholly responsible for security costs for the
entire facility.
5. The Southeast Co mmuni ty Center was constructed in 1986
to mitigate the construction of the Southeast Treatment
Plant. The mitigation order issued by the State Water
Resources Control Board requires that a skills center be
located at the Southeast Community Center. Mr. John Roddy
of the City Attorney's Office states that the mitigation order
requirement that a skills center occupy the facility has been
met by locating the City College of San Francisco satellite
campus at the Southeast Community Center.
6. The Real Estate Department reports that although the
proposed rental amount is below the fair market value of rent
for the area, the San Francisco Community College District
provides a public benefit in accordance with the designated
use for the facility. According to the August 7, 1992 letter
from the Real Estate Department to the Budget Analyst
regarding a new lease for the Head Start Child Care
Program at the Southeast Community Center (File 65-92-12),
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
the fair market value of space at the center is $1.25 per square
foot per month ($15 per year), or $537,000 annually for the
35,800 square feet of space occupied by the San Francisco
Community College District. The proposed annual rent of
$157,250 is $379,750 or approximately 71 percent less than the
fair market value of $537,000. Therefore, approval of the
proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
7. The Budget Analyst is currently performing a
management audit of the Clean Water Program that is
responsible for operation of the Southeast Community
Center. The audit scope includes an examination of the
matter of actual rents for the use of space that are less than
the fair market value of the space. The report to be issued as
a result of this examination will include recommendations
regarding the computation of rents for use of space.
8. Given that the proposed rental rate for the lease is $379,750
or approximately 71 percent less than fair market value of
$537,000, the Budget Analyst recommends that the lease with
the San Francisco Community College District continue on a
month-to-month basis and that the proposed ordinance,
which would result in a lease renewal for approximately two
years and seven months, be continued to the call of the Chair
until the Budget Analyst's management audit report of the
Clean Water Program is completed and submitted to the
Board of Supervisors. The Budget Analyst anticipates
submitting this management audit to the Board of
Supervisors in January, 1993.
Recommendation: The proposed ordinance should be continued to the call of the
Chair, pending submission to the Board of Supervisors of the
Budget Analyst's management audit report on the Clean
Water Program. The lease of space at the Southeast
Community Center to the San Francisco Community College
District should continue on a month-to-month basis.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 9 - File 124-92-9
Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy
Committee on October 27, 1992 because of its fiscal impact.
Department
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Parking Authority
Ordinance amending the Traffic Code by amending Section
32.8.12 thereof, to authorize the removal of the 38 metered
parking spaces at 1350 Bush Street.
The metered parking facility at 1350 Bush Street, which will
become an annex to the new Polk-Bush Garage facility,
currently contains 38 metered parking spaces on property
leased from the San Francisco Unified School District. This
annex will be converted from the existing 38-space metered
parking facility to a 32-space secured monthly parking
facility addition to the adjoining Polk-Bush Parking Garage.
The Polk-Bush Parking Garage has 132 parking spaces,
which would be increased to 164 parking spaces with the
addition of 32 parking spaces from the parking annex at 1350
Bush Street.
1. Mr. Kevin Hagerty, Director of the Parking Authority,
advises that the 1350 Bush Street metered parking facility
generated $16,135 in gross revenues during FY 1991-92, of
which $3,900 was deducted for the cleaning of the metered
parking area leaving a net revenue of $12,235. Further, Mr.
Hagerty reports that the conversion of the existing metered
parking facility into an annex to the new Polk-Bush Garage
is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 (previously
reported to cost $40,000), which would be paid for by
previously appropriated Off-Street Parking Funds.
2. Based on a gross revenue of $16,135 in FY 1991-92 from a
total of 38 meters at the 1350 Bush Street metered parking
facility, an average of $424.60 was generated annually from
each meter ($16,135 divided by 38). Further, since the
metered parking area was in operation six days per week or
312 days during FY 1991-92, and the average cost per
metered parking was 30 cents per hour, each meter collected
an average of $1.36 per day ($424.60 divided by 312 days) and
the average use per meter was 4.5 hours per day ($1.36
divided by 30 cents per hour).
3. As previously noted, the parking annex would have six
less parking spaces, a reduction from 38 spaces to 32 spaces,
with the conversion from metered parking to parking as
part of a new Polk-Bush Garage. Mr. Hagerty advises that
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
the reduction of six spaces is necessitated by the installation
of a new gate that is recessed at the current entrance on
Bush Street. The placement of the new gate requires the
removal of six existing parking spaces.
4. Mr. Hagerty also advises that the 38 meters will be
removed by the Department of Parking and Traffic's meter
shop as part of their normal duties at the time the contractor
for the Polk-Bush Garage renovates the annex for the
additional garage space. Mr. Hagerty estimates that this
work would begin in approximately three weeks and that the
conversion would require from four to six weeks to complete.
The 38 meters will be used to replace broken meters
throughout the City as needed.
5. Mr. Hagerty also reports that merchants in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed parking annex strongly
support the conversion of the existing metered parking
facility into a monthly parking facility because loitering,
vandalism and other negative street activities are currently
taking place at the existing metered facility. With the
proposed conversion from metered parking, a new monthly
rental parking facility annex would eliminate transient
parking on a daily basis.
6. On August 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted
Ordinance 273-92 (File 47-92-5) authorizing a management
agreement with a private garage operator to manage the
Polk-Bush Parking Garage. The management agreement
(after deduction of parking tax and payment of $12,000
annual rent for the annex property) would allow the garage
operator to receive a monthly management fee (based on the
monthly cost to operate the garage and to be adjusted
annually according to the Consumer Price Index) paid from
the gross parking revenues and five percent of the garage
gross revenues exceeding $300,000 per year. The balance of
revenues would accrue to the City's Off-Street Parking
Fund.
7. On October 13, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved
Resolution No. (File 47-92-5.1), which awarded management
of the Polk-Bush Garage to the firm of City Parking.
8. The Parking Authority estimates that the Polk-Bush
Garage and annex will initially generate gross annual
revenues of $275,000. The Parking Authority estimates that
$55,000 of the $275,000 would be deducted for parking tax,
based on a 25 percent parking tax, leaving a balance of
$220,000 (1.25 divided by $275,000). Of the remaining
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
34
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
$220,000, the Parking Authority estimates that $12,000 would
be paid to the San Francisco Unified School District for
rental of the annex property, the management fee of $156,948
($13,079 monthly) would be paid to City Parking, and a
balance of $51,052 less the operator's expenses for property
insurance and possessory interest tax would accrue to the
City's Off-Street Parking Fund. Mr. Hagerty states that
estimates of the costs of property insurance and possessory
interest tax have not been made because this is the first time
that a management agreement has been used and because
there are no other garages with comparable characteristics
to the Polk-Bush Garage that can be used as a basis for these
estimates. In Mr. Hagerty's opinion, these costs for
property insurance and possessory interest tax will not
exceed the estimated balance of $51,052 net income.
9. This item was approved by the Economic and Social Policy
Committee on October 27, 1992 and transferred to the
Finance Committee because of its fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
35
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Item 10 - File 161-92-7
Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy Committee on
October 27, 1992 because of its fiscal impact.
Department San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA)
Item: Resolution amending Resolution No. 177-90, designating and
describing the South of Market Survey Area by adding
additional land.
Description; In response to the Loma Prieta earthquake, on March 12,
1990 the Board of Supervisors designated a portion of the
South of Market area, that had sustained earthquake-related
damage, as a Redevelopment Survey Area that was
subsequently called the South of Market Earthquake Recovery
Redevelopment Project Area. As the name suggests, the
SFRA is limited to redeveloping earthquake-damaged
properties in the South of Market Earthquake Recovery
Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed resolution would
amend the South of Market Earthquake Survey Area to
expand the boundaries to include properties that were not
directly damaged by the earthquake.
Although not the subject of the proposed resolution, the SFRA
is ultimately proposing to amend the South of Market
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Plan to convert it to a
more conventional Redevelopment Plan and to expand the
SFRA's revitalization efforts beyond properties that were
directly damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake. The SFRA
has not yet developed a proposed amendment to the
Redevelopment Project Area Plan for the proposed amended
survey area because the Board of Supervisors must first
amend the survey area before a plan can be developed.
As outlined on the attached map, the proposed expansion of
the South of Market Redevelopment Survey Area would
include the area between Seventh, Harrison, Folsom and
Columbia Square Streets and the area between Clementina,
Fifth, Harrison and parcels just south of Fourth Streets.
According to Mr. Erwin Tanjuaquio of the SFRA, if the
proposed resolution and the subsequent revised South of
Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area
Plan are approved, the SFRA intends to pursue construction
of affordable housing in the proposed expanded project area.
As the attached map illustrates, there are several potential
sites to construct affordable housing. In addition, the SFRA
would pursue economic development activities such as
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
36
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
providing small business loans and grants to business
owners located in the proposed expanded project area.
Comments: l.Mr. Bob Gamble of the Redevelopment Agency advises that
the proposed South of Market Earthquake Recovery
Redevelopment Project Area expansion would, if approved by
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, eventually allow the
SFRA to issue additional tax increment bonds and claim
additional tax increment revenues from the South of Market
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area. However,
the proposed resolution would only amend the survey area
and, as previously noted, not approve a revised
Redevelopment Project Area Plan. A South of Market
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area Plan
would outline generally the projects which the SFRA would
undertake, and would contain the estimated costs of such
projects and the expected sources of revenues. As such, the
fiscal impact of expanding the South of Market Earthquake
Recovery Redevelopment Project Area would not be known
until a revised South of Market Earthquake Recovery
Redevelopment Project Area Plan has been completed and
submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
However, if the proposed resolution and subsequent
Redevelopment Project Plan are approved, the proposed
expansion would most likely result in a fiscal impact to the
City of greater than $10,000 annually because the SFRA
would have a greater amount of potential tax increment
revenues to claim to repay potential tax increment bonds. To
have a fiscal impact of greater than $10,000 the SFRA would
have to issue tax increment bonds of $163,000 based on tax
increment revenues from the proposed expanded areas. In
FY 1992-93, the Agency will issue approximately $3.7 million
in tax increment bonds for the South of Market Earthquake
Recovery Redevelopment Project Area. Thus, it is likely that
if the proposed resolution and subsequent Redevelopment
Project Plan are approved, the proposed expansion would
result in a fiscal impact to the City of greater than $10,000
annually.
2. This item was approved by the Economic and Social Policy
Committee on October 27, 1992 and transferred to the Finance
Committee because of its fiscal impact.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
37
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Recommendation: The proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
[arvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SI JPKRVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment
39
h
CITY AND COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Library, (Documents (Dept.
S¥rm(: Qerry^ptft
y
OF SAN FRANCISCO
DOC!'*" "T.
NOV 5 1992
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
SAN FRAN?' >
PUBLIC Lib if
November 2, 1992
Fhii
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Enrage t Analyst nece^\ ^<w</^ „ ,
SUBJECT: November 4, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
y REVISED
Item la - File 101-91-38.4
Note: This item was continued at the October 28, 1992 Finance Committee
Meeting.
Department: Public Library
Item: Request for release of reserved funds for geotechnical
services during construction of the new Main Library
Amount: $106,898
Source of Funds: 1988 Library Improvement Bonds
Description: The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a
supplemental appropriation (File 101-91-38) in the amount of
$4,015,003 for project services related to the construction of
the new Main Library. Of the $4,015,003 appropriated, a total
of $1,529,805 was placed on reserve pending selection of
contractors and determination of the MBE/WBE status of the
contractors and contract cost details. Of the $1,529,805
originally placed on reserve, a total of $549,772 has previously
been released by the Finance Committee, leaving a balance of
$980,033 on reserve.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
The balance of $980,033 in reserved funding includes $120,000
for geotechnical services consulting. This item is a request to
release $106,898 of the $120,000 reserve for geotechnical
services.
The geotechnical services consultant would 1) monitor the
excavation activities for the new Main Library to determine
that the actual soil conditions encountered during excavation
are compatible with the design requirements by performing
and evaluating soil density tests, 2) review and approve the
shoring design submitted by the construction contractor, 3)
observe excavation in preparation for the foundation and 4)
monitor the pile driving associated with shoring and
foundation work.
The geotechnical consulting firm of Geo/Resource
Consultants, Inc., was retained by the construction
management contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates,
Inc., as a subcontractor to assist in preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report. According to Mr. Russ Abel
of the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture,
in order to maintain continuity of professional responsibility
throughout the construction of the new Main Library, it is
desirable to utilize the same geotechnical consultant for all
phases of the planning, design and construction of the new
Main Library. Therefore, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
will continue as the geotechnical consultant subcontractor
under the prime contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg for the new
Main Library construction project.
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., is a local business but is not
an MBE or WBE firm. Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., has
estimated the costs for their services totaling $106,898, as
follows:
Professional Services:
Principal Engineer (90 hours @ $120 per hour) $10,800
Project Engineer (220 hours @ $90 per hour) 19,800
Staff Engineer (548 hours @ $65 per hour) 35,620
Support Staff (74 hours @ $40 per hour) 2.960
Total-Professional Services $69,180
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Sub-Subcontracts:
Shoring Review and Soil Observation $20,000
Treadwell & Rollo, neither MBE nor WBE,
Engineer/Scientist rates from $55 to $140
per hour
Indicator Piles:
Institu Tech 6,080
Neither MBE nor WBE, field work is $165
per hour and office work is $135 per hour
Robert Pvke 1.920
Neither MBE nor WBE, 16 hours at $120
per hour
Total-Subcontracts
Total - Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.
O'Brien-Kreitzberg administration of
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc.,
subcontract (10 percent per master agreement)
$28.000
$97,180
Lzia
Total Requested Release of Reserve $106,898
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Abel, the cost estimates for Shoring
Review and Soil Observation ($20,000) and for Indicator Piles,
Institu Tech ($6,080) are not based on estimates of hours of
work multiplied by hourly rates paid to professional staff. Mr
Abel indicates that cost estimates for excavation work cannot
be precise because the scope of work is subject to revision
depending on conditions that cannot be known until the
excavation has actually begun. If the costs for the excavation
work exceed the above estimates, the excesses will be charged
against the budget for contingencies (see Comment 2, below).
2. Upon re-reviewing the proposed release of reserved funds,
Mr. Abel noted that a ten percent contingency was not
included in the amount originally requested to be released.
According to Mr. Abel, the unpredictable, actual scope of the
work to be performed that is dependent upon the work of
other subcontractors and upon underground conditions that
will not be known until the excavation is completed requires a
ten percent contingency in the budget for geotechnical
services. Therefore, Mr. Abel requests that an additional
$10,690 (ten percent of $106,898) be released for contingencies
for a total release of reserved funds of $117,588 ($106,898 plus
$10,690), which is still within the $120,000 that was budgeted
and reserved for geotechnical services.
Recommendation: Release reserved funds in the amount of $117,588 including
the originally requested amount of $106,898 plus the
additional $10,690 for contingencies.
BOARD OF ST TPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
y
*G<15
n
*3
PLEASE NOTE THAT MEETING
WILL BEGIN AT 12:00 NOON
4
CALENDAR
RECESSED MEETING OF
FINANCE COMMITTEE
^^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DOfM iMrMTs DEPT
NOV 1 3 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
M/sj
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1992 - 12:00 NOON
ROOM 228, CITY HALL
PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street;
companion measure to File 172-92-15. (Chief Administrative Officer)
(Recessed from 11/4/92)
ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting.
File 172-92-15 . [Agreement] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution and
delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, (including certain
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of
agreement for purchase and sale agreement of real estate, a facilities lease
(including certain indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including
certain indemnities contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the
distribution of an official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County
of San Francisco certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series
1993; authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to
submit budgets for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of
participation; and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all
in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property;
companion measure to File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer)
(Recessed from 11/4/92)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Entitled: "[Project Lease] Approving
and authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement of purchase
and sale for real estate (including certain indemnities and the release of
the seller contained therein), an assignment of agreement of purchase
and sale for real estate, a facilities lease (including certain indemnities
contained therein), a trust agreement (including certain indemnities
contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the distribution
of an official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County
of San Francisco certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street
Project) Series 1993; authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix
rents to be charged and to submit budgets for approval; authorizing and
ratifying execution of documents reasonably necessary for the execution,
delivery and sale of the certificates of participation; and adopting
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in connection
with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property.
Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting.
(Public Library, (Documents (Dept.
3 p ATZAQ QerryXfftfi
i
CITY AND COUNTY
|*K
OARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
November 6, 1992
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: "November 9, 1992 Recessed Meeting of the Finance Committee
Items 1 and 2 - Files 97-92-61 and 172-92-15
Note: These items were recessed from the November 4, 1992 Finance Committee.
Departments: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Items: File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following
provisions:
(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of
an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including
certain indemnities and the release of the seller contained
therein);
(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase
for sale of real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain
indemnities contained therein); (c) a trust agreement
(including certain indemnities contained therein); and (d) an
official statement;
(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting
bids in connection with the City and County of San Francsico
Certificates of Participation (1660 Mission Street Project)
Series 1993;
(4) Authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents
to be charged and to submit budgets for approval;
(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of
the Certificates of Participation; and
(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section
101.1, all in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the
1660 Mission Street property.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Location:
Purpose of
Purchase:
Seller:
Developer:
No. of Sq. Ft:
Total Cost:
Source of Funds:
Description:
File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit,
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street.
1660 Mission Street
To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire
Department permit processes at a single location.
Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to
oversee the asset
The Derringer Group
97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet
$5,700,000
($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11
regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant
improvements)
Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt
service for Certificates of Participation
Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits;
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building
Inspection.
The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core
and shell condition in mid-1991 and is a six-story steel frame
office building with a one level subterranean garage.
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which
will be used for parking.
The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation.
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The
investors would receive a return on their investment through
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation.
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of
Participation.
To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following
categories of fees:
(a) Plan Review Fees;
(b) Building Code Fees;
(c) Public Works fees;
(d) Planning Code fees;
(e) Administrative Code fees.
All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as
follows:
(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through
June 30, 1995;
(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
1995 through June 30, 2000; and
(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
2000 through June 30, 2005.
Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire.
The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following
dollar costs:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Comments:
(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects,
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second
period; and $9.82 in the third period;
(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000.
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the
third period;
(3) .1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects,
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the
second period; and $430.90 in the third period.
Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees
are consistent with the fees noted above.
Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr.
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest.
1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six
floors, which would be used as follows:
First Floor:
to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public
parking; and public information booths where seven
employees would provide information regarding the status of
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code
information, etc.
Second Floor:
to include the permit center and the construction services
center.
Third and Fourth Floor:
to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and
code enforcement sections, including all inspectors.
Fifth Floor:
to include the administrative offices for the various applicable
departments.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
Sixth Floor:
to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.)
2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now
occupying the four different locations noted in the description
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr.
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms,
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place.
3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop."
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California,
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However,
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency
that would be achieved in San Francsico. Mr. Litchfield
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most
permit applicants who have been in contact with the
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time.
However, there is no documentation as to whether such
applicants, who have been in contact with the various
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for
large construction projects.
4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new
building would accomodate any growth in permit requests in
future years, Mr. Litchfield reports.
BOARD OF SUPERVISOKS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit
application process would be restructured. Instead of
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with
permit processors to review applications in person. This new
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports.
6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping
employees who provide information to the public. Mr.
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit
processing functions are located on a number of different
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has
not been provided with any documentation regarding
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services
Center.
7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister,
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall,
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises.
8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate
Harrison of the Superior Court advises.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
6
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase,
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports.
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of
the State Code.
10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing.
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account.
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000.
11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million.
The estimated $3.5 milli on in tenant improvements would be
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million,
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which
would be repaid from the fee surcharges.
12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The
cost of such improvements would vary based on the
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr.
DeLucchi.
13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price,
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and
related financing institutions invested approximately $17
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street.
14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports.
15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed
building purchase.
16. According to Mr. Weiner, the CAO anticipates
introducing an Amendment of the Whole for the proposed
ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the CAO to
negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to an
underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 4, 1992
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless
the market changes significantly over the next few months.
Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports
doumenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15)
(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
cc: Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
Jja^ Harvey M. Rose
V
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
p
IcUS
BOARD of SUPERVISORS
!ii|r~
Govt Documents
Public Library
Civic Center
S .F. CA 94102
D 0133
////
NOVEMBER 5, 19 9 2
NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DOr." iMFNTS DEPT.
NOV 9 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that due to the Veteran's Day
holiday, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance
Committee for Wednesday, November 11, 1992, at 2:00 p.m.,
/
has been cancelled.
TOHN L. TAYLOR
'Clerk of rhe Board
POSTED: NOVEMBER 5, 1992
^ NOV 17 1992
?(7.2S ^CALENDAR SAN FRANCISCO
i ^ PUBLIC LIBRARY-
MEETING OF
FINANCE COMMITTEE
I*/'
IT-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. LEGISLATr/E CHAMBER
^W 2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL
MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate
item.
(a) File 101-90-36.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Department of Parking and Traffic, in an amount totalling $525,148 ($28,671 to
City Planning Department for environmental review costs and $496,477 for
identified hazardous waste clean-up costs) at the new San Francisco General
Hospital parking garage. (Department of Parking and Traffic)
(Cont'd from 11/4/92)
(b) File 133-92-2.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Chief Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in an amount
totalling $17,000, for graphic design services for three projects, contractors
Maria Wang Design Studios, Katherine Loh Graphic Design and Vinh Chung,
($7,000 for updating office paper guide, $5,000 for design and printing of a
Buy-Recycled Guide" and $5,000 for development of a waste minimization
technical assistance packet for non-residential generators). (CAO/Solid Waste
Management Program)
(c) File 101-89-34.8 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Public Library, in the amount of $55,623, for the Chinatown Branch Library
Design Funds. (Public Library)
(d) File 101-89-34.9 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Public Library, in the amount of $63,000, for the Mission Branch Library
Design Funds. (Public Library)
(e) File 101-90-121.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Water Department/1991 Series-A Revenue Bond, in the of amount 2.6 million,
for water main replacements. (Water Department)
(f) File 94-91-4.5 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Public Utilities Commission, in the amount of $533,605, for project
administration, indirect cost and equipment purchases. (Public Utilities
Commission)
(g) File 146-92-57.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuing
grant of $6,029,444, which includes indirect costs in the amount of $429,170
based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to continue funding the
AIDS Prevention Project. (Department of Public Health)
(h) File 146-92-72 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a
supplemental grant in the amount of $77,239, which includes indirect costs of
$7,317 based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to augment a
continuation the AIDS Surveillance Project. (Department of Public Health)
(i) File 148-92-8 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing Director of
Public Works to apply for, accept and expend Federal funds in the amount of
$182,552 for the planting of trees using small local businesses as contractors.
(Department of Public Works)
(j) File 25- Q 2-33 . [Contract] Resolution concurring with the Controller's
certification that Coordinator and Mentor Services for the Independent Living
Skills Project can be practically performed at the Department of Social
Services by private contractor for lower cost than similar work services
performed by City and County employees. (Department of Social Services)
(k) File 143-92-5 . [Office of Criminal Justice Planning Funding] Resolution
authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and County of San Francisco to
apply for, accept and expend funds in the amount of $110,000 made available
through the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for a project entitled "Crime
Prevention Expansion Project, Mission Corridor"; and agreeing to provide cash
match in the amount of $12,222 dollars. (Police Commission)
(1) File 146-92-39.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, to
accept and expend a grant of $42,402 from the State Department of Health
Services; for an augmentation of immunization services; waiving indirect
costs. (Department of Public Health)
(m) File 146-92-40.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services, to accept and expend a grant of $283,000 which includes indirect
costs in the amount of $14,150 based on five percent of the total award from
the State Department of Mental Health Services; for consultation, education
and information services to San Francisco residents; providing for ratification
of action previously taken. (Department of Public Health)
(n) File 146-92-54 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, Special Programs for Youth, to retroactively
apply for, accept and expend a grant of $66,774 which includes indirect costs in
the amount of $11,070 based on twenty percent of salaries from the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, to investigate the epidemiology of high risk
adolescents in San Francisco; providing for ratification of action already
taken. (Department of Public Health)
(o) File 146-92-61.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, to accept and expend a grant allocation of
$10,782,909, for Fiscal Year 1992-93 funding from State Department of Health
Services for California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds, for
medical services to indigent persons, professional services, medical services
contracts, materials and supplies, facilities rental, personal services, and
indirect costs in the amount of $152,841 based on 1.658646 percent of County
Hospital and other Health Services CHIP allocations. (Department of Public
Health)
ACTION:
REGULAR CALENDAR
2. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden)
(Cont'd from 11/4/92)
ACTION:
3. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
(Cont'd from 11/4/92)
ACTION:
4. File 198-92-3 . [Municipal Court Commissioner] Resolution authorizing the
appointment of a commissioner for the San Francisco Municipal Court and assuming
all costs as required by State law. (Supervisor Migden)
ACTION:
5. File 195-92-1.1 . Hearing to consider a long-range plan to alleviate jail
overcrowding. (Supervisor Migden)
ACTION:
6. File 101-92-8 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $220,624, Mayor's
Office of Community Development, for professional special service contracts
(Dispute Resolution Program), permanent salaries. (Supervisor Hallinan)
ACTION:
7. File 118-92-8 . [Medical Waste Generator Procedures, Fees] Ordinance amending
Health Code by adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413, to provide a program
for enforcement of the California Medical Waste Management Act and for
registration, permitting, inspections and administrative fees for medical waste
generators, treatment and storage facilities. (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
8. File 260-92-1 . [Removal of Funds from Bank of America] Resolution urging the
transfer of two city remittance banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging
the transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging
that Bank of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll deposit
program, and urging all officers and employees of the City and County when given
the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial institution for the City to
consider the use of financial institutions other than the Bank of America.
(Supervisor Achtenberg)
ACTION:
9. File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street;
companion measure to File 172—92—15. (Chief Administrative Officer)
(Cont'd from 11/9/92)
ACTION:
10. File 172-92-15 . [Project Lease] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution
and delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including certain
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of
agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, a facilities lease (including certain
indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including certain indemnities
contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the distribution of an
official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County of San Francisco
certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 1993; authorizing
the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to submit budgets
for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents reasonably necessary
for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of participation; and adopting
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in connection with the
acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property; companion measure to
File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer)
(Cont'd from 11/9/92)
ACTION:
11. File 79-92-3 . [Federal Funding - Community Development] Resolution approving
the 1993 Community Development Program, authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the
City and County of San Francisco to apply for, receive, and expend the City's 1993
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; transfer and expend reprogrammed
funds from prior year Community Development Programs and program income
generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $21,708,373, which
includes indirect costs of $80,000; approving expenditure schedules for recipient
departments and agencies and for indirect costs, and determining no environmental
evaluation is required, authorizing the receipt and deposit in contingencies of 1993
CDBG entitlement funds in excess of $21,708,373. (Mayor)
ACTION:
12. File 38-92-25 . [Gift Acceptance] Resolution accepting one gift valued at $5,480,
from Wells Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park. Department
Summer Activities Brochure. (Recreation and Park Department)
(Cont'd from 11/4/92)
ACTION:
13. File 64-92-25 . [Extension of Existing Real Property Lease] Resolution authorizing
exercise of an option to extend the existing lease of Pier 70 from the Port of San
Francisco for use by the Police Department. (Real Estate Department)
ACTION:
14. File 64-92-26 . [Lease of Real Property] Resolution authorizing a new lease of real
property at 25 Taylor Street, Rooms 612 and 614, for Department of Public Health.
(Real Estate Department)
ACTION:
15. File 100-92-1.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's
Office of Children, Youth & Their Families, in the amount of $3,275,126, contractual
services. (Mayor's Office of Children, Youth & Their Families)
ACTION:
16. File 101-92-9 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $5,100, Art
Commission, for other services (police security). RO #92089 (Controller)
ACTION:
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROOM 235, CITY HALL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
IMPORTANT
HEARING NOTICE
D 0133
Govt Documents
Public Library
Civic Center
S.F. CA 94102
f
\
CITY AND COUNTY
Mic Library, "Documents CDept.
| op san ^iOSS^Q^QeTry %gtfi
/
J>
DOC! impmts DEPT,
;OARD OF SUPERVISORS
NOV 17 1992
BUDGET ANALYST
SAN FRANCISCO
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
November 16, 1992
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst /^co/w^*^*" -
SUBJECT: November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
Item la -File 101-90-36.2
Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of
November 4, 1992.
Department Department of Parking and Traffic
Item: Release of reserve for the new San Francisco General
Hospital parking garage.
Amount: $525,148
Source of Funds: Off-Street Parking Funds
Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation
authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$1,000,000, for the Department of Parking and Traffic, to be
used to pay for hazardous waste removal and environmental
review fees in connection with the proposed new San
Francisco General Hospital Garage. At the same time, the
Board of Supervisors placed the entire $1,000,000 on reserve
pending the Department of Parking and Traffic's selection of
contractors and determination of hours, hourly rates and the
MBE/WBE status of the contractors (File 101-90-36). Of the
$1,000,000, $474,852 has previously been released from
reserve, leaving a balance of $525,148 still on reserve. The
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
$474,852 previously released from reserve was used to pay for
contract services for the performance of the Environmental
Impact Review ($162,850) and for contract services for the
provision of hazardous waste removal ($312,002).
The Department of Parking and Traffic is now requesting
that the remaining balance of $525,148 be released from
reserve. The Department of Parking and Traffic reports that
$28,671 of the $525,148 would be used to pay for the City
Planning Department's environmental review costs and the
remaining $496,477 would be used to pay for additional
contract services for the provision of hazardous waste
removal.
The Department of Public Health (DPH), Bureau of Toxic,
Health and Safety Services is responsible for the
management of the clean up of the toxic waste materials at
the parking garage site. Ms. Pam Hollis of the Bureau of
Toxic, Health and Safety Services reports that the
Department has contracted with Harding Lawson Associates
to provide the necessary hazardous waste removal services.
According to Ms. Hollis this firm has an on-going contract
with the PUC to provide similar services and was selected
because the project could proceed more expeditiously, without
a break in service, and operate more efficiently due to the
firm's familiarity with the project site and with City
operations. Harding Lawson Associates is neither an MBE or
WBE firm. The contract with Harding Lawson Associates is
in the amount of $519,963 as detailed below:
Labor
Principal Engineer (104 hrs. @ $41.19/hr.) $4,284
Associate Engineer (348 hrs. @ $33.16/hr.) 11,540
Associate Engineer (96 hrs. @ $34.10/hr.) 3,273
Project Engineer (613 hrs. @ $21.24/hr.) 13,020
Project Engineer (80 hrs. @ $24.75/hr.) 1,980
Senior Engineer (42 hrs. @ $25.82/hr.) 1,084
Project Coordinator (84 hrs. @ $18.78/hr.) 1,578
Senior Field Technician (224 hrs. @ $18.21/hr.) 4,079
Field Technician (185 hrs. @ $13.27/hr.) 2,455
Field Operation Manager (40 hrs. @ $21.10/hr.) 844
Field Operation Manager (100 hrs. @ $21.00/hr.) 2,100
Technical Editor (2 hrs. @ $18.06/hr.) 36
Drafting (84 hrs. @ $18.96/hr.) 1,593
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Administration (8 hrs. @ $19.00/hr.)
Staff (240 hrs. @ $17.60/hr.)
Word Processing (6 hrs. @ $14.24/hr.)
Word Processing (183 hrs. @ 11.56/hr)
Word Processing (8 hrs. @ 10.00/hr.)
Clerical (83 hrs. @ $9.83/hr.)
Subtotal
Operating Expenses
Services and Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Indirect Costs
Contingency
Subtotal
Subcontracts
$152
4,224
85
2,115
80
816
$18,597
113,041
191,853
4 0,139
$55,338
Total
363,630
100.995
$519,963
Comments: 1. As noted above, the Contract services are estimated to cost
$519,963, which is $23,486 more than the $496,477 available on
reserve for these services after reducing the total $525,148
funds available by $28,671 for the Planning Department. Mr.
Kevin Hagerty of the Department of Parking and Traffic
reports that a supplemental appropriation request has been
submitted to the Mayor's Office, which would provide for the
$23,486 balance needed to cover the cost of the contract services.
The source of funds for this supplemental appropriation is the
Off-Street Parking Funds.
2. The City Planning Department reports that the
environmental review costs are based on a fee schedule. The
level of fee charged is determined by the total amount of the
project construction costs.
3. Ms. Hollis reports that Harding Lawson Associates has thus
far selected HEW Drilling Company, a registered MBE firm, to
provide a portion of the necessary subcontract services for this
project. HEW Drilling Company's subcontract is in the amount
of $19,105. Ms. Hollis advises that Harding Lawson Associates
has stated that they are committed to subcontracting with MBE
and/or WBE firms for the entire $100,995, which has been
earmarked for subcontract services.
4. According to Ms. Hollis, the removal of hazardous waste
from this project site is now estimated by DPH to cost
approximately $1.8 million or approximately $800,000 more
than the original projection of $1,000,000. Ms. Hollis advises
that the original estimate was made prior to the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
commencement of any analysis or work on the project and that
subsequent analysis and investigation of the site has uncovered
substantially more hazardous waste contamination then
originally anticipated. Ms. Hollis states that it will be
necessary for the Department of Parking and Traffic to submit
a supplemental appropriation at a later date to pay for these
unanticipated costs.
Recommendation: Approve the release of reserve funds in the amount of
$525,148.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item lb - Fi l* 133-92-2.2
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Solid Waste Management Program
Release of reserve funds for graphic design services for three
projects.
$17,000
Source of Funds: Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account
Description: During its review of the Solid Waste Management Program's
FY 1992-93 budget, the Board of Supervisors placed $519,000
for professional services on reserve pending information
regarding identification of the service providers, estimated
hours of service, hourly rates and MBE/WBE status. The
Finance Committee has previously approved the release of
$15,000 of the $519,000, leaving a balance of $504,000 still on
reserve. The CAO is now requesting that an additional
$17,000 be released from reserve to be used for the provision of
graphic design services for the Solid Waste Management
Program.
The Solid Waste Management Program reports that the
$17,000 would be expended as follows: (1) $7,000 would fund
services provided by Maria Wang Design Studios, to update
the fourteen page step-by-step guide on setting up a office
paper recycling program, (2) $5,000 would fund services
provided by Katherine Loh Graphic Design to design and
print a "Buy-Recycled Guide" and (3) $5,000 would fund
services provided by Vinh Chung Graphic Design to develop a
waste minimization technical assistance packet for non-
residential generators. The estimated hours of service as well
as the hourly rates charged by the three firms are as follows:
Maria Wang Design Studios
Principal Designer (35 hrs. @ $50/hr.)
Associate Designer (35 hrs. @ $50/hr.)
Production Artist (40 hrs. @ $40/hr.)
Computer Production (47.5 hrs. @ $40/hr.)
Subtotal
Contract
Amount
$1,750
1,750
1,600
1.900
$7,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Comment:
Recommendation:
Katherine Loh Graphic Design
Graphic Design Services
(40 hrs. @ $50/hr.) $2,000
Translation - Asian and Baltic
(25 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 1,250
Typesetting (30 hrs. @ $40/hr.) 1,200
Production Services (36 hrs. @ $15/hr.) 540
Subtotal
4,990
Vinh Chung Graphic Desig n
Design (40 hrs. @ $50/hr.) $2,000
Translation - Spanish (40 hrs. @ $25/hr.) 1,000
Typesetting (20 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 1,000
Illustration (18 hrs. @ $55/hr.) SSQ.
Subtotal 4.990
Total $16,980
The Solid Waste Management Program advises that the
above noted graphic designers were selected as the most
qualified contractors after the evaluation of work samples
and interviews with a large pool of graphic designers in San
Francisco. According to the Department, this process
involved contacting approximately 20 firms listed with the
Human Rights Commission and, in turn, meeting with ten
of these firms to review work samples and to discuss their
capabilities. Maria Wang Design Studios and Katherine Loh
Graphic Design are certified as both MBE and WBE firms
and Vinh Chung Graphic Design is a certified MBE firm.
As noted above, the total amount required for the three
graphic design contracts is $16,980 or $20 less than the
$17,000 requested.
Approve the proposed release of reserve funds in the amount
of$16,980.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item lc and Id - Files 101-89-34.8 and 101-89-34.9
Department Public Library
Items: Request to release reserved funds.
Amount: 101-89-34.8 $55,623~Chinatown Branch Library Design
101-89-34.9 $63,000- Mission Branch Library Design
Source of Funds: 1988 Public Library FaciHties System Improvement Bonds
Description:
In October of 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a
supplemental appropriation ordinance for $11,366,423 to fund
various capital improvement projects for the Main Library
and the Branch Libraries and placed $3,940,277 on reserve.
$3,263,255 of that $3,940,277 was earmarked for the Bureau of
Architecture to provide architectural services to the Branch
Libraries. $175,000 of that $3,940,277 was to provide design
services. The Board of Supervisors placed the $175,000 on
reserve pending detailed budget information regarding the
level and type of staff services to be provided on the projects.
These two requests would comprise $118,623 ($55,623 plus
$63,000) of the $175,000 on reserve and would fund design
services for the Chinatown and Mission Branch Libraries.
The Bureau of Architecture has provided the following
budgets for these two projects:
Chinatown Branch Library
Position.
Hours
Rate
Total
Architect
270
$71
$19,170
Architectural
Assoc. (2)
275
69
18,975
Architectural Assist.
271
35
9,485
Clerical
64
37
2,368
Contingency
5,625
Total
Mission Branch Library
Position
Hours
Rate
Total
Architect
300
$71
$21,300
Architectural
Assoc. (2)
300
69
20,700
Architectural Assist.
300
35
10,500
Clerical
90
37
3,330
Contingency
7,170
Total
BOARD OF SIJPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
$55,623
$63,000
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Recommendation: Release the requested $55,623 (File 101-89-34.8).
Release the requested $63,000 (File 101-89-34.9)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item le - File 101-90-121.2
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Water
Release of reserved funds for continuing the program of
replacing water pipe connections (service) from the City's
water mains to water customers' water meters.
$2.6 million
Source of Funds Water Department 1991 Series A Revenue Bonds
Description:
Comments:
On June 26, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution (file 101-90-121) appropriating $47,925,000 from
Water Department 1991 Series A Revenue Bonds for the
following projects:
Main Replacement Project $ 19,125,000
Service Renewals Project 2,500,000
Calaveras Pipeline 11,300,000
San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining 15.000.00C
Total $47,925,000
Of the $19,125,000 appropriated for the Main Replacement
Project . $3,500,000 was reserved pending the Water
Department identifying the contractors to be used to replace
the water mains and their MBE/WBE status. Instead, the
Department requests that $2.6 million of the Main
Replacement Project reserve be released and be used to
continue the Service Renewal Project because the $2.5 million
originally appropriated for the Service Renewal Project has
been expended. This work is performed by Water Department
personnel.
1. The Service Renewal Project has been part of a continuing
Water Department program in conjunction with the Main
Replacement Project . A "service" is the small diameter pipe
that is installed from the water main in the street to the
meter located near the customer's property line. Initially, the
Service Renewal Project concentrated on replacing old
services containing lead pipe or fittings because of public
health concerns. More recently, galvanized iron pipe services
are being replaced because they are subject to corrosion, and
some old plastic pipe services are being replaced because they
are subject to cracks and leaks.
2. The original $2.5 million appropriated for the Service
Renewal Project work provided for the renewal of
approximately 1,700 services to Water Department customers
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
over a year. The requested additional $2.6 million that would
come from the proposed release of reserve of Main
Replacement Project monies would provide for the renewal of
an estimated additional 1,700 services during the year
beginning December 1, 1992. The budget for the proposed
additional Service Renewal Project work is as follows:
Labor
Material and Supplies
Paving
Total budget
$1,950,000
300,000
350.000
$2,600,000
3. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office indicates that
the use of funds from the Main Replacement Project for the
Service Renewal Project does not require any additional
legislation.
4. The Water Department's Service Division initiates a
service renewal in response to reported problems or as part of
the Service Renewal Project by submitting a work order to the
Department's City Distribution Division. The City
Distribution Division replaces the services with Department
crews and material; without the need of plans or
specifications.
5. The $2.6 million is not currently required for the Main
Replacement Project because this project is behind schedule.
The Water Department is currently preparing a
supplemental appropriation request for additional bond fund
monies for the Main Replacement Project . The supplemental
appropriation request will be made in January, 1993.
6. The Water Department requests the release of $2.6 million
of the $3.5 million reserved for the Main Replacement Project
so that the amount of work accomplished under the Service
Renewals Project work can be increased. According to Ms.
Michele Witt, Finance Director for the Public Utilities
Commission, the remaining $900,000 on reserve ($3,500,000
originally reserved less the proposed release of $2,600,000)
will be requested at a future date when the Department is
ready to award contracts for the Main Replacement Project .
Recommendation: Release the reserve.
BOARD OF SUPKKVISOKS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Itemlf-File94-91-4.fi
Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Municipal Railway (MUNI)
Item: Release of reserved funds for project administration, indirect
cost and equipment purchases.
Amount: $533,605
Source of Funds: Federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA) Section 9 formula assistance funds.
Description: On June 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved
Resolution No 529-91 (File 94-91-4) appropriating $13,815,120
of UMTA Section 9 formula assistance funds and $3,453,780
from various local match sources totaling $17,268,900:
Project Description Federal Local Total
Fixed-Facility Rehabilitation
Miscellaneous Equipment
Non-Revenue Vehicles
Data Processing & Office Equipment
24th & Utah Shop Replacement
Trolley Overhead Reconstruction
Mission Street
F-Market Streetcar (PCC) Renovation
Trolley Specification
Total
$6,674,080
$1,668,520
$8,342,600
1,144,500
286,125
1,430,625
729,304
182,326
911,630
875,164
218,791
1,093,955
449,496
112,374
561,870
3,035,096
758,774
3,793,870
526,528
131,632
658,160
380.952
95.238
476.190
$13,815,120
$3,453,780
$17,268,900
With the approval of Resolution No. 529-91, the Board of
Supervisors reserved $14,093,750 of the $17,268,900. To date,
$4,611,509 of the $14,093,750 has been released per four
previous requests for release of reserved funds, as follows:
Purchase of Computer Equipment $ 94,479*
Streetcar Refurbishment 658,160
Modification to Paint Booth Fans 65,000
14 Mission Trolley Overhead Reconstruction 3.793.870
Total $4,611,509
* PUC was required to submit a report on the actual cost of
equipment because the $94,479 represented an estimated cost
for the proposed data processing equipment. This report is
still pending.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Comments
The subject release of funds totaling $533,605 would increase
the total release of funds from $4,611,509 to $5,145,114, leaving
a balance of $8,948,636 on reserve.
The proposed release of reserves totaling $533,605 would
provide for project administration, indirect costs and
equipment purchases, as follows:
Administrative Work to be Performed by In-House Staff
Sidewalk and Yard Paving $68,184
Yard Security and Communications 51,977
System Waste Collection, Identification
and Removal 60,234
BART Wet Standpipes, Phase II 117,554
Cable Car Channel Construction 68.827
Subtotal $366,776
Equipment Purchase
Yard Security and Communications 27,063
Consultant Services
System Waste Collection, Identification
and Removal 139.766
Total $533,605
1. The Budget Analyst has reviewed the funding totals for
each of the five projects for which administrative work is to be
performed by in-house staff. The funding totals are as
follows:
Project In-House
Description Staff Costs
Sidewalk and Yard Paving $68,184
Yard Security and Communications 51,977
System Waste Collection & Removal 60,234
BART Wet Standpipe Phase II 117,554
Cable Car Channel Construction 68.827
Total $366,776
Consultant/
Contractual
Services
$181,816
218,023 '
289,766 '
1,882,446
831,173
Total
$250,000
270,000
350,000
2,000,000
900.000
$3,403,224 $3,770,000
* includes $27,063 for equipment purchases (see Comment 2)
** includes $139,766 for consultant services (see Comment 3)
2. The $27,063 includes the purchase of 21 portable radios
(including carrying case and microphone accessory) at $1,000
per portable radio, one base unit at $3,000 and one battery
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
charger at $1,000 plus sales tax. The equipment will replace
the public address system at the Kirkland shop and to
support construction work in the subway tunnels.
3. According to Ms. Rosa Rankin of MUNI, the consultant
services for the System Waste Collection and Removal Project
is to be performed by Clayton Environmental Consultants,
which is not a MBE/WBE contractor. However, 5 sub-
contractors supporting the work of Clayton Environmental
are providing a 30 percent MBE/WBE contribution to the
entire consultant contract as follows:
Fuel Oil Polishing (WBE)
10%
Bendix Environmental (WBE)
5%
Jordan Associates (MBE)
5%
E2 Consulting Engineers (MBE)
5%
HEW Drilling (MBE)
5%
Total
30%
Recommendation:
4. In reviewing the financial data provided by MUNFs
Engineering Division, the Budget Analyst noted that the
calculation for the project management of the Sidewalk and
Yard Paving Project totaling $8,511 was double counted in
computing the total in-house staff cost of $68,184. Under
these circumstances the in-house staff cost for the Sidewalk
and Yard Paving Project should be reduced by a total of $8,511
from $68,184 to $59,673 and the subject release of reserve
should be reduced $8,511 from $533,605 to $525,094.
Decrease the proposed release of reserves by $8,511 from
$533,605 to $525,094 and approve the release of reserves as
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
13
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item lg -File 146-92-57.1
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
AIDS Office
Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health,
AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuing grant of
$6,029,444, which includes indirect costs in the amount of
$429,170, based on 20% of personnel costs, excluding fringe
benefits, from the Centers for Disease Control, to continue the
AIDS Prevention Project.
Amount of Grant: $6,029,444
Source of Grant Centers for Disease Control
Grant Period:
Project:
Description:
Grant Budget
January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993
AIDS Prevention Project
The proposed grant would support a variety of AIDS
Prevention Programs. These programs include counseling
and testing services, partner notification services, health
education and risk reduction services, and public
information services. In 1993, additional prevention
strategies would be incorporated into the project, including
community level interventions, prevention case
managements, and limited short and long term follow-up to
determine program impact on behavior change.
To implement the AIDS Prevention Project, the AIDS Office
monitors contracts, performs program assessments and
evaluation studies to determine the need for continued
services for each population, as well as providing direct
services. Direct services are also provided by non-profit
organizations as sub- contractors.
Personnel
Prevention Chief
Program Coordinator
Project Coordinator
Secretary II
Secretary I
Sr. Clerk Typist
Clerk Typist
Statistician
MIS Specialist III
MIS Technician
FTE
1.00
$58,834
3.00
153,038
1.25
54,466
3.50
129,090
1.00
28,602
2.50
80,585
3.00
89,718
1.00
38,607
.25
13,338
1.00
26,327
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Management Assistant
1.00
$46,099
Jr. Management Assistant
2.80
98,459
Lab Assistant
1.00
36,254
Microbiologist
1.50
71,507
Sr. Disease Control Investigator 1.00
46,768
Disease Control Investigator
6.50
259,938
Epidemiologist II
1.00
56,025
Sr. Health Educator
2.00
110,391
Health Educator
2.00
97,776
Asst. Health Educator
3.50
154,207
Health Prog. Coordinator III
.50
30,127
Health Prog. Coordinator II
1.00
44,360
Health Worker IV
2.80
116^08
Health Worker III
2.70
82,423
Licensed Vocational Nurse
.50
17,030
As Needed Nurse
30,276
Registered Nurse
1.00
51,182
Medical Social Work Supervisor 1.00
55,195
Medical Social Worker
1.00
45,216
Psycho-Social Worker
,50.
23,719
Personnel Subtotal
$2,145,865
Fringe Benefits @ 25.6%
550,055
Total Personnel
50.80
Travel
Local Travel
$9,140
Out-of-Jurisdiction Travel
22.875
Equipment
PC Work Stations (3 at 3,140)
$9,420
PC Computer
1,500
Scantron Optical Mark Reader (a device
that automatically reads a questionaire)
12.530
Total Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Non-Inventoried Equipment
$1,775
Laboratory supplies
56,000
Clinical Supplies
9,850
Education Materials and Supp]
ies
38,210
Office Supplies
21,753
Operating Expenses
Rent Support (Clinics)
$15,000
Rent Support
130,409
Telephone/Communications
25,600
Postage
7,185
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
$2,695,920
32,015
23,450
127,588
15
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Delivery/Courier Services
$12,750
Photocopier Leasing
10,350
Reproduction Costs
13,920
Printing/Slide Production
6,550
Promotions/Advertising
27,600
Staff Training
10,625
Security and Janitorial Svcs at Clinics
12,107
Client Participation Incentive
28,595
Utilities
1,200
$301,891
Contractual Services (listed by program and target group) *
HIV Prevention & Education
Gay/Bisexual Injection
Drug Users (IDUs) -
18th Street Services (B) $122,901
African- American IDUs - Bay view
Hunter's Point Foundation (C) 116,750
Evaluation of IDUs - UCSF Urban
Health Study (D) 428,409
Asian/Pacific Islander community:
Japanese Community
Youth Council (E) 40,587
Filipino Task Force on AIDS (F) 40,000
Asian AIDS Project (G) 82,413
Female IDUs/Partners of IDUs -
Planned Parenthood (J) 30,000
IDUs in the Tenderloin -
Glide Foundation (K) 10,000
African-American
gay/bisexual community -
National Task Force on
AIDS Prevention (L) 30,000
Latino Community -
to be determined (M) 92,910
African-American community -
to be determined (N) 86,602
Latino gay/bisexual community -
to be determined (O) 30,000
Consultants to develop a video for
on HIV transmission prevention
- Youth Guidance Center
(sole source; not included on
Attachments A or B) 11.000
Total HIV Prevention and Outreach $1,121,572
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
HIV Counseling and Testing
Anonymous HIV
Counseling and Testing Services
- UCSF AIDS Health Project (A) $367,204
Counseling/Testing Training -
UCSF AIDS Health Project (P) 125,932
IDUs in Bayview/Hunter's Point -
Bayview Hunter's Point
Foundation (Q) 102,000
IDUs Citywide - Haight Ashbury
Free Clinics, Inc. (R) 139,674
IDUs-
Westside Community Health (S) 158,211
Risk Reduction -
18th Street Services (T) 77,655
Gay/bisexual Asian/
Pacific Islander community -
Asian-Pacific Islander
Coalition on AIDS (H) 60,000
Technical Assistant to minority
community based organizations -
The Support Center (I) 25.000
Total HIV Counseling and Testing $1,055,676
HIV Prevention Staffing at San
Francisco General Hospital (supports
6.0 FTEs at SFGH, including a Program
Administrator; an Administrative Assistant;
a half-time Public Administrative Analyst; a
Clinical Director of Counseling and
Testing; a half-time Employee Counselor;
and two Patient Counselors) 242.162
Total Contractual Services $2,419,410
Indirect Costs 429.170
TOTAL BUDGET $6,029,444
*Capital letters following contractors' names correspond to
contractor selection procedures listed on the "1993 AIDS
Prevention Project: Summary of Contractual Services,"
attached (Attachment B). All contractors that are "to be
determined" should be reserved pending selection of a
contractor and MBE/WBE status of the contractor (see
Comment 3).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Indirect Costs: $429,170 or 20 percent of personnel costs excluding fringe
benefits.
Required Match: None
Comments: 1. The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution
(File 146-92-57) authorizing the DPH to apply for a
continuation grant of $6.25 million from the Centers for
Disease Control, to continue funding the AIDS Prevention
Project.
2. The proposed $6,029,444 in 1993 grant funds is $69,691, or
1.1 percent less than the $6,099,135 allocated by the Centers
for Disease Control for the AIDS Prevention Project for 1992.
3. Attachment B entitled "1993 ADDS Prevention Project:
Summary of Contractual Services" contains capital letters
following the names of contractors in the Contractual
Services portion of the budget which correspond to the names
of contractors on this attachment. The attachment describes
the selection procedures for each contractor. All of the
contractors for the AIDS Prevention Project are non-profit
organizations.
Contracts that are "to be determined" should be reserved
pending contractor selection and information regarding the
MBE/WBE status of the contractor. Contractors to be
determined are as follows:
Latino Community (M)
African-American community (N)
Latino gay/bisexual community (O)
TOTAL TO BE DETERMINED
$92,910
86,602
30.000
$209,512
Thus, a total of $209,512 should be reserved pending selection
of contractors and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors.
4. Six contractors were selected as sole source renewals:
UCSF AIDS Health Project; Bayview Hunters Point
Foundation; Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.; Westside
Community Mental Health; Eighteenth Street Services; and
the Youth Guidance Center. According to Mr. Tim Piland of
the DPH, the DPH authorizes the selection of sole source
contractors in cases where either the contractor is the only
organization to provide the service, or where the contractor is
the only organization to express an interest in the contract.
Such sole source contracts may be in place for three years,
Mr. Piland reports. Therefore, according to Mr. Piland, these
sole source contracts will be bid competitively after three
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1 R
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
years, or in or before 1994 (since these sole source grants are
all renewals, and thus would be in their second year).
5. The DPH has received EIPSC approval for the purchase of
three PC workstations and one PC.
6. The DPH advises that if grant funding were reduced or
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated
accordingly. The proposed grant would support 50.8 FTEs,
plus 6.0 FTEs at San Francisco General Hospital (shown as
last item under Contractual Services in budget above).
7. Attachment A is a Summary of Grant Request^ as
prepared by the DPH, for the proposed supplemental grant.
Recommendation
7. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the file.
Reserve $209,512 for contractual services as detailed in
Comment 3, above, pending selection of contractors and
determination of the MBE/WBE status of the contractors.
Approve the proposed resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
Attachment A
Ittm No. 1 1 1 h Cnrnmi^i"P - Summnrv nf r nnt Ren»?5t
Dept of Health and Human Services
Rev. 4/io/SO
Grantor
Contact Person
Centers for Disease Control
E. Taylor/J. Stubbs
CO/AIDS Div
AIDS Office
Address 255 East Paces Ferry Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30305
Amount Requested S 6,029,444
Term: From 1/1/93
Health Commission 10/20/92
To 12/31/93
Division • _
Section _
Contact Person Tim Piland/ Judith Weld
Telephone SS&-Q137 SS4-QCUA
Application Deadline 9/18/92
Notification Expected 11/15/92
Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Full Board
T. Item Description:
Request 10 Qspplptot) (accept and expend) a (aoc) (continuation) {riJamnB^BnacgaOBtoffgl)
grant in the amount of S 6, 029,444 from the period of 1/1/93 to 12/31/93
to provide continued funding for AIDS Prevention Project services.
1L
These funds will continue to support, along with additional state and local funding ,
a wide array nf ATDS prevention programs; these programs include Counseling and Tes t ing
services. Partner Notification services. Health Education and Risk Reduction servic es,
and Public Information services. (Please see Executive Summary)
T T T . Ou tcome<;/Oh iecf i ves:
To provide AIDS prevention services to residents of San Francisco in order to
prevent the transmission of HIV. (Please see Executive Summary)
TV. r rrrc-
,t S»Hiirti
The efforts of the AIDS Office to limit the transmission of HIV in San Francisco
would be severely impaired if we were not allowed to accept and expend these funds,
Financial Tr.for
Cnl.
cm.
Grant Amouat
Personnel
Equipment
'Contract Svc.
Mat. & Supp.
Facilities/Space
Other
Indirect Costs
i wo Years Ago
6.032.973
2.066.590
13.810
3.413.269
56,146
114.288
33,244
335.626
Pan Ycar/Onj.
6.099.135
2.574.965
16.982
2.582.671
115,206
154.075
246,510
408,726
■ Propoicd
6.029.444
2.695.920
23.450
2.408,410 -174.261
127,588 + 12,382
Cnl. D
Gangs
- 69.691
+120.955
+ 6,468
145.159
199,747
429. 170 J
- 8.916
- 46,763
+ 20.444
Rec. Match
W$L
vj
Dntn
P'nr,<
:.no
(^
PfT
-.v«,
VTT
F/T CSC
P/T CSC
Contractual
7,000
46.00
16,9 82
51.65
23,450
50.80
6,468
- 0.85
Sourct(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-tizne on this grant:
None .
Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If sc, How?
No.
'VTTT. rnnirirnnl ^orvic.c; Open Bid
Sole Source
Please see Contract Summary Attachment
Attachment B
rage 1 of 2
1993 AIDS PREVENTION PROJECT: Summary of Contractual Services
.1
AIDS Office Contracts
A . UCSF ADDS Health Project
Anonymous testing services $367,204
B . Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation
for Eighteenth Street Services
Outreach to gay/bisexual substance-
abusing community $122,901
C . Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation
Outreach to African American substance-
abusing community $116,750
D . UCSF Urban Health Study
Outreach evaluation to substance-
abusing community $428,409
E . Japanese Community Youth Council
Prevention and education for Asian-
Pacific Islander community $ 40,587
F . Filipino Task Force on ADDS
Prevention and education for
Filipino community $ 40,000
G. Asian American Health Forum
for Asian AIDS Project
Prevention and education for Asian-
Pacific Islander community $ 82,413
H. Asian American Health Forum
for Asian-Pacific Islander Coilition
on AIDS
Prevention and education for Asian-
Pacific Islander gay and bisexuals $ 60,000
The Support Center
Technical assistance for community-
based organizations $ 25,000
RFP 088-90 renewal
RFP 077-90 renewal
RFP 077-90 renewal
RFP 077-90 renewal
RFP 105-90 renewal
RFP 105-90 renewal
RFP 105-90 renewal
RFP 080-90 renewal
To augment previously
approved sole source contract
Atta chment B_
Page T~o~F~2
J . Planned Parenthood
Prevention and education for women kt risk
(IDUs, their partners, sex industry workers,
lesbian and bisexual women) $ 30,000
K. Glide Foundation
Prevention and education via street-
outreach to injection drug users
$ 10,000
L . National Task Force on AIDS Prevention
Prevention and education for African
American gay and bisexual community $ 30,000
M. To Be Determined
Prevention and education for the
Latino community
N . To Be Determined
Prevention and education for the
African American community
. To Be Determined
Prevention and education for Latino
gay and bisexual community
TBD
TBD
TBD
RFP 111-91 augmentation
RFP 077-90 augmentation
RFP 080-90 renewal
Currently out-to-bid
Currently out-to-bid
Currently out-to-bid
P . UCSF ADDS Health Project
Counseling and testing services/training
Q. Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation
Counseling and testing services
R. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.
Counseling and testing services
S . Westside Community Mental Health
Counseling and testing services
T. Eighteenth Street Services
Counseling and testing services
Community Substance Abuse Service Contracts
$125,932
$102,000
$139,674
$158,211
$ 77,655
Sole source renewal
Sole source renewal
Sole source renewal
Sole source renewal
Sole source renewal
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item lh - File 146-92-72
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
AIDS Office
Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, AIDS
Office, to accept and expend a supplemental grant of $77,239,
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $7,317, based on
20% of salaries, from the Centers for Disease Control, to
augment a continuation of the AIDS Surveillance Project.
Amount of Grant: $77,239
Source of Grant: Centers for Disease Control
Grant Period: January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993
Project: Supplemental Funding to the AIDS Surveillance Project
Description: This supplemental funding would allow the AIDS Office to
continue the Women's Survey Study in 1993. The Women's
Survey study would determine the prevalence of HrV
infection in a sample of 250 women who have sex with
women in nine Bay Area counties. The study would
determine the level of risk behaviors in this population and
the associates of this population, and would describe the
population's safe sex behaviors.
No. of Persons
tobe Served:
250 women
Grant Budget
Personnel FTE
Sr. Disease Control Investigator .42 $17,309
Disease Control Investigators .50 19.275
Subtotal Salaries $36,584
Fringe Benefits (26%) 9.512
Subtotal Personnel .92
Operating Expenses
Staff Mileage 150
Staff Training 876
Client Participation Incentives ($50 x 250) 12,500
Survey Vehicle Rental
(Recreational Vehicle to travel to test sites) 4,500
Recreational Vehicle Gas and Oil 300
Clinical Supplies 1,500
Laboratory Supplies 3,300
Educational Materials and Supplies 2QQ_
•
Subtotal
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
$46,096
23,826
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
$7.317
$77,239
Indirect Costs
Total
Indirect Costs: $7,317 or 20 percent of salaries
Required Match: None
Comments: 1. The DPH was not required to apply for this proposed
supplemental grant, since it previously applied for 1993 funds
from the Centers for Disease Control for the AIDS
Surveillance Project.
2. The proposed $77,239 in supplemental grant funds is 3.5
percent greater than the $2,179,806 originally allocated by the
Centers for Disease Control for the AIDS Surveillance Project
for 1993.
3. Attached is a Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by
the DPH, for the proposed supplemental grant.
4. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the file.
Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2A
Iter:,' No. Hen Uh C"mmi5«=i"P - Summnrv nf GUUll F?HU?5t Rev. 4/10/90 1
Dept of Health ai luman Srvs
Grantor Centers for Disease Control Division - CQ-/AIDS Div
Contact Person Nealeen Austin/Jeff Efird Section AIDS Office
Address 1600 Clifton Road Contact Person Judith Weld/Galen Leu ng
Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone 554-9000
Amount Requested S 77,239 ; Application Deadline none
Term: Frow 1/1/93 To 12/31/93 Notification Expected 11/15/92
Health Commission 10/20/92 Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Full Board .
y. item Description: Request to ^appl$»QSor) (accept and expend) z'^oea^sactaisaQa/i^f/sMsaxxm) (augmentation to a)
«c~ .prf— -<■*-> grant in the amount of S 77,239 from the period of 1/1/93 to 12/31/93
to prnvirle supplemental funding to AIDS Surveillance Project services.
This supplemental funding will allow the Women's Survey Study to continue into the new
1993 funding period: this study will dete rmine the prevalence of HIV- infect ion in a
sample of 250 wom en who have sex with wom en (a lik e number were surveyed wi th 1992 funds)
in a nine-county S.F. Bay Area selection area; will determine level of risk behavio rs in
this population and thei r associates; wi ll descr ibe attitudes and hehavi ors about s afe sex.
[TT. Ourcnmes/Ohifcrivfs: ■ Please see attached Protocol.
Please see page three of the attached Protocol for the Women's Survey.
if P-Htirrinn or T>rm it. atjnr
Failure to accept and expend these funds would not allow the AIDS Office to continu e
this important epidemiologic study in 1993.
V. Financial In form a tion : - ■ '
Cnl. A Cnl. R Cnl. Q Cnl. D Rec. Match A^vnv.j v.
Two Vesri Ago ?:»i Yeir/Orij./ ■ Propojed Cua{c /
Grant Anouat 1.986.112 2.102.567 2.179.806 + 77.239^ none
Personnel 1.393.627 1.522.763 1.568,859 + 46.096 j
Equipment 18,180 11,707 11,707 ;
Contract Sv C . 156.529 58,900 58.900
Mat. & Suod. 102.426 92.161 97.661 + 5.500
Facilities/Soace 35,986 52.191 52,191 i
Other 94,152 123,136 141,462 + 18,326
Indirect Costs 221,211 241,709 249,026 ± 7.317
18,180 11,707 11,707
VT n n t n P-nr.<
cino
. \.^ A
III. Ptrcnnn«l
FIT CSC 29.70 27.70 30.20 + 2.50 (p ar tial fun ding: remainder of
P/T CSC thes e arlHirinn al positions will
Contractual lie funded by other grant sources)
iource(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-tice on this grant:
None; all other sources of funding for these additional positions are grant funded .
"ill grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How?
io. "
VTTT rnv-iri.nl cr.rvif.c- Open Bid Sole Source IV^mmxm.MMll&MtmUtBaimtmB
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item li - File 148-92-8
Department Department of Public Works
Item:
Grant Amount :
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project
Description:
Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to apply
for, accept and expend Federal funds in the amount of
$182,552 for the planting of trees, using small local
businesses as contractors.
$182,552
October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993
U.S. Small Business Administration
National Small Business Tree Planting Program
The Small Business Administration of the U.S. Department
of Commerce has allocated Federal funds to the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for reforestation
projects which utilize small businesses. The California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is administering
the grant funds to local governments.
Under the Public Works code, the Department of Public
Works (DPW) is responsible to plan, plant, maintain, and
remove trees in any public street. DPW reports that the
proposed grant funds of $182,552 would supplement $155,680
in DPWs 1992-93 budget for urban forestry activities, in order
to fund the following projects:
• Street Tree Replacement
Approximately 550 trees died during the freeze of
December 1990. The proposed grant would fund the
replacement of these trees with hardier, drought-tolerant
species. These trees would be planted City-wide.
• Sunset Boulevard Reforestation
DPW reports that of 850 trees planted along Sunset
Boulevard approximately 50 years ago, many are of
declining vigor. The proposed reforestation project would
assist DPW to implement its management program for
this 2.3 mile thoroughfare.
• Brotherhood Way Improvements
DPW reports that the reforestation project would improve
the aesthetic character of Brotherhood Way east of
Junipero Serra Boulevard by screening the blank walls of
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
■?f>
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Project Budget
abutting residences and introducing extensive tree groves
throughout the right-of-way.
DPW reports that the proposed grant would fund 550
replacement trees City-wide and approximately 2,800 new
trees on Sunset Boulevard and Brotherhood Way, for a total of
3,350 trees to be purchased and planted using the proposed
grant funds.
Under the terms of the grant program, plant materials must
be purchased from at least one small local business, and the
overall project must be performed using the services of at
least two small local businesses, which are defined as firms
having 100 or fewer employees. DPW would be responsible
for project planning and design, construction management,
and maintenance, using existing budgeted funds (see Project
Budget, below).
DPW has provided the following cost summary for the
proposed reforestation project:
Activity
Contractual Services
Maintenance
Project Planning and Design
Construction Management
Administrative Fee —
CA Department of Forestry
Total Project Costs
Local Funds
Grant Funds
$146,042
$140,680
7,500
7,500
36.510
$155,680
$182,552
Required Match:
The grant program requires the grantee to provide an in-kind
contribution equal to at least 35 percent of the grant amount.
San Francisco's proposed grant funding of $182,552 therefore
would require a local match of at least $63,893.
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
reports that indirect costs are not allowed. However, the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection itself
imposes an administrative fee of 20 percent for administering
the Federal funds for this program.
1. According to the Ms. Darla Mills of the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP), grant
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
01
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
funds may be used only for contracts with small local
businesses to purchase and plant the trees. Plant materials
must be purchased from at least one small local business,
and the overall reforestation project must include the
services of at least two small local businesses, according to
Ms. Mills.
Ms. Mills reports that the grant funds must be expended by
the end of the Federal fiscal year, which is September 30,
1993. In order to account to the Federal government in a
timely fashion, however, Ms. Mills reports that CDFFP will
require the funds to be expended prior to August 31, 1993.
2. Ms. Mills states that, because the Federal government did
not provide funding to CDFFP to administer the grant,
CDFFP has imposed an administrative fee of 20 percent.
Under the proposed grant to DPW, the City would pay 20
percent of the proposed grant amount of $182,552, or $36,510.
Ms. Mills states that the administrative fee must be paid
using local funds and cannot be paid from the grant
proceeds. However, DPW has included the administrative fee
in the budget for the grant-funded portion of the project,
which conflicts with the grant requirements as stated by Ms.
Mills.
3. Mr. John Thomas, a Landscape Architect at the Bureau of
Engineering who assisted in preparing the grant application,
reports that DPWs budget for 1992-93 does not include $36,510
to pay the CDFFP administrative fee. Mr. John Roumbanis
of the Department of Urban Forestry at DPW states that
$36,510 could be diverted from funds allocated in the 1992-93
DPW budget from Proposition B, 1/2 cent sales taxes proceeds
to pay the administrative fee. These sales tax proceeds are
allocated to DPW for street maintenance activities City-wide.
Mr. Roumbanis states that although these funds are already
committed to tree maintenance activities, it would be in the
City's best interests to divert $36,510 from these activities in
order to secure the proposed grant funds of $182,552 for the
proposed reforestation projects. According to Mr.
Roumbanis, the tree maintenance activities which would
have been funded with the $36,510 in Proposition B funds
would be postponed.
4. Since the proposed grant funds cannot be used to pay the
CDFFP administrative fee, then $36,510 in grant funds which
DPW has budgeted for the administrative fee would be
available for additional reforestation activities. Mr.
Roumbanis states that these funds would be used to provide a
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
larger number of trees for the three projects already specified
in the proposed reforestation program.
5. Mr. Mel Baker of the Department of Urban Forestry at
DPW states that DPW has not yet identified the small local
businesses that would be retained under the grant program.
The project budget submitted by DPW includes $146,042 for
contractual services. However, as previously noted, the
balance of the proposed grant, in the amount of $36,510, is
also required to be used for contractual services to procure
and plant trees. Therefore, the entire proposed grant
amount of $182,552 should be placed on reserve pending
identification of the proposed contractors and specific budget
details for the reforestation projects.
6. Ms. Mills states that the terms of the grant include a local
in-kind contribution of at least 35 percent of the total grant
amount. Based on the proposed grant to the City of $182,552,
the City would be required to provide an in-kind contribution
of at least $63,893. Ms. Mills states that maintenance
services provided within three years after the trees are
planted can be used to satisfy the in-kind contribution
requirement.
The project budget submitted by DPW reflects that the in-kind
contribution would consist of project planning and
construction management services valued at $15,000, and
maintenance costs of $140,680, for a total in-kind contribution
of $155,680. This is $91,787 more than the required in-kind
contribution of $63,893. Mr. Roumbanis states that the City's
actual contribution would be higher than the required in-
kind contribution because the City would need to remove 550
trees damaged in the 1990 freeze, before new trees could be
planted using the proposed grant funds.
Mr. Baker states that the City's in-kind contribution for
maintenance of $140,680 is included in DPWs approved 1992-
93 budget for street tree maintenance. If the proposed grant
were not accepted and new trees were not planted, Mr. Baker
states that the City would nonetheless incur costs of
approximately $70,000 to remove the 550 damaged trees, but
would not have to expend approximately $70,000 to maintain
the 3,350 proposed new trees.
7. In summary, the Budget Analyst notes that DPW will not
require supplemental appropriations to pay the $36,510
CDFFP administrative fee and the City's $155,680 in-kind
contribution. However, the City will transfer $36,510 from
existing tree maintenance projects to pay the administrative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
fee, resulting in a decrease in some maintenance activities
for the City's existing trees. If and when the proposed
reforestation project is completed, the City would be required
to maintain 3,350 new trees, at an estimated annual cost of
$70,000.
The benefit to the City of the proposed grant funds would be a
total of $182,552 in new funds for tree purchases and planting
activities. These funds would include $146,042 to purchase
and plant 550 replacement trees throughout the City
(estimated by DPW at approximately $82,000), and
approximately 2,800 trees along Sunset Boulevard and
Brotherhood Way (estimated by DPW at approximately
$64,000). In addition, $36,510 would be available to augment
the number of trees proposed for Sunset Boulevard and
Brotherhood Way.
8. The proposed resolution would authorize DPW to apply for,
accept and expend the proposed grant funds. However, DPW
applied for the proposed grant in March, 1992. Therefore, the
title and body of the proposed resolution should be amended tc
ratify action previously taken by DPW to apply for the
proposed grant.
9. The proposed resolution states that indirect costs are not
included because the proposed grant includes only non-labor
costs and therefore indirect costs "are not a factor."
According to Ms. Mills, the U.S. Small Business
Administration does not allow indirect costs. Therefore, the
proposed resolution should be amended to reflect that indirect
costs are not allowed by the Small Business Administration.
10. The completed Grant Application Information Form
provided by DPW is attached.
Recommendation; 1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution to reflect that
authorization to apply for the proposed grant would apply
retroactively, and that indirect costs would be waived;
2. Amend page 1, lines 22 through 24 to read, "Whereas, the
U.S. Small Business Administration does not allow funding
for indirect costs and indirect costs are therefore waived; now
therefore be it..."
3. Amend the proposed resolution at page 2, line 1 by
substituting "apply for, retroactive to March 1, 1992," for the
words "apply for;"
BOARD OF SUPER VISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
4. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve the entire grant
amount of $182,552 pending identification of contractors and
specific budget details for the proposed reforestation projects.
5. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
FROM: ALL
File Number
TO:
415 252 0461
wwiuuim I
SOU 16. 1992 3:35PM 8256
y6952175
Grant Application Information Form
a document required to accompany a proposed resolution
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant
To: The Board of Supervisors
Attn: Clerk of the. Board
The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying
resolution:
Department: PtS#/-/i> Ac/(K£>r __
Contact Person: .^^^ S>i c AfeAsAs rf Telephone:
Project Title: -T^aj-i. /fi/s/M<$fs 7*/c<££ s*'SSA'T/si*£.
Grant Source: *S*?4 /-<- <c?&'j"ssu'£ j J~ ^.SAt/A'/
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary:
... >
^v /^^,
^^oyyo tfy/'^/-/;
~^/<L£<er S?+t<£
/e<£ SZ-0se£ j- 7**7'/'**' o^ fi/SsS^T- tftH/^VstALfi £ ry ^Xyfi^^SasCL
o o
.<^<s\r.
s-s-S~4>?eo
SsCOtf^ A,
sr*Ar~st?*'
& *.€> TAXStL^I OP<d l*/J y 7->T<? tf j*X*A^-SA, C- ^ M0 ^* f TOASTS* *
\
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: *# / )f l- r^^-
Maximum Funding Amount Available: Jt^ 2^ °^ t o c V
Situ 7f\i
Required Matching Funds : '^j '?$& [jf 3 < ? , r/P tv'/i'^o 7 a*\* J-'t-rJ .<< c>, ■ ■'.-<• t 4
lumber of Positions Created ondi Funded: S*isn £f+>ssA/<5jy c-PA'T^ ^^T^'
Amount to be Spent oh Contractual Services: ^ s 1 -*^ €> <?<? /$2 l s£ i_
will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? X<^-r
/ 1 — . ■ i
i?
FROM: PILL
Page 2
TO:
415 252 0461 NOU 16. 1992 3:36PM 8256 P.
rerm of Grant: & as£ y&SJe (sfi/C-ffT /???)
>ate Department Notified of Available funds? A?J<gA> S*.
&
ipplication Due Dote: Shj *cA> S4 Sff?—
!raht Funding Guidelines end Options (from RFP, grant announcement or
ippropriations legislation):
RP
;»>-
Aa<- If/far hfcK
Department Head Approval
TOTPl. P. 002
FROM: PILL
TO:
415 252 0461
NOU 16. 1992 3:36PM «256 P. 03
INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Forestry and Fire
(COF) is accepting applications from state and local
agencies for the allocation of tree planting funds
program sponsored by the U.S. Small Business Administration
Grants are available to state and local agencies for the purpose
of planting trees on state or local government ownep or
controlled land.
For further assistance, please contact Jonathaji Rea at
(916) 6S3-9420 or Don Banghart at (916) 653-9447.
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Funding Instrument!
Funding i
Grant
The total amount of grant dollars available to tb$ State of
California is $1,743,166.
Matching Requirements j
25% of 1st half of project plus
45% of 2nd half of project, cash or in-kind
(Matching can include CDF administrative charge) .
CDF Administrative Charge*
CDF will charge up to 20% of the grant amount for
support, payable upon contract signature.
Closing Time and Date for the Submission of Applicants:
(J March 16, T992T 5i00 p.m. local time ' "^
Project Starting Date: Prior to SeptemEet r ~30T"i992
Project Duration: 12 months
Project Completion Date: September 30, 1993
Authority: Section 24 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.s.c. section 6S1
Protection
governmental
hrough a
administrative
"U
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item li - File 25-92-33
Department
Item:
Services tobe
Performed:
Description;
Department of Social Services (DSS)
Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification
that Coordinator and Mentor Services for the Independent
Living Skills Project can be practically performed by a
private contractor for lower cost than similar work services
performed by City and County employees.
Coordinator and Mentor Services include coordination of
the services of four agencies providing Independent Living
Skills services contracted through the Department of Social
Services and mentor services to approximately 80-100
adolescents (ages 16-19) participating in the Independent
Living Skills Project. These mentor services include the
recruitment and training of adult volunteers to serve as
mentors (counselors) to the adolescents and the
recruitment and enrollment of the adolescents in various
support services (i.e., tutorial and job training).
The Controller has determined that contracting for
Coordinator and Mentor Services at the Department of
Social Services for calendar year 1993 would result in
estimated savings as follows:
Lowest
Salary
Step
Highest
Salary
Step
Citv Operated Service Costs
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
$40,668
9.354
$48,128
11,069
Total
$50,022
$59,197
Contracted Service Costs
46.300
46.300
Estimated Savings
$3,722
$12,897
Comments:
1. According to the Department of Social Services,
Coordinator and Mentor Services were first certified as
required by Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1989 and have
continued to be provided by an outside contractor since then.
2. The current contract for the Coordinator and Mentor
Services, which originally was due to expire September 30,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
is
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
1992, was extended for three months to December 31, 1992.
The proposed contract for these services would be for a nine
month period from January 1, 1993 to September 30, 1993.
3. Mr. Dave Rees of the DSS advises that this contract is
funded by Federal Title IV monies and the funder requires
that the contract be bid competitively each year. According
to Mr. Rees, the DSS received three proposals in response to
a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued recently by the
Department. The RFQ was advertised in the Purchaser's
Bid Job Opportunity bulletin, as well as in the San
Francisco Independent, the Asian Weekly, the El Bohemio,
and the Bay Area Reporter. Additionally, the DSS sent out
individual letters announcing the job opening to 96 agencies
in the City. The Department selected Ms. Kasey Brenner as
the most qualified applicant. Ms. Brenner is the current
contractor for these services. The proposed 1993 contract
with Ms. Brenner would represent the fourth year that Ms.
Brenner has provided these contract services. Ms. Brenner
is not a certified/registered MBE or WBE firm.
4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of
this contract, is attached.
Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
CHARTER 8.300-1 PROPOSITION J QUESTIONAIRE
DEPARTMENT 45 Social Services For Time period 10/1/92 to 9/30/93
CONTRACT SERVICES Coordination and Mentor Services, ILS Program
1. Who performed services prior to contracting out?
Service has been contracted out since program was established. It
has never been performed by City and County employees.
2. Number of City employees laid off as result of contracting out?
None.
3. Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off?
Not applicable. Employees had not performed service.
4. What percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be
contracted out.
None.
5. Eov long have the services been contracted out?
4 years.
6. What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certifciation?
1989-1990
7. How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action
Plan.
It will conform with the plan. RPQ has been conducted.
David Rees, Contract Manager
Department Representative
557-5585
Telephone Number
17
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item Ik - File 143-92-5
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project
Description:
Police Department
Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and
County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend
funds in the amount of $110,000 made available through the
Office of Criminal Justice Planning and agreeing to provide a
cash match in the amount of $12,222.
$110,000
July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993
Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Crime Prevention Expansion Project: Mission Corridor
The Police Department reports that the Mission Police
District has the highest number of calls for service in the
City. According to the Department, calls in the Mission
District are ten times the City average. The Department
states that the project target area has a population that is
among the most diverse in the City, with a high density of
families and older adults living at or below the poverty level.
The area also lacks affordable housing, has a high
unemployment rate and a large number of undocumented
aliens. Additionally, the Department notes that the area
contains a significant number of parolees.
The proposed State grant funds would be used to provide
services aimed at expanding crime prevention efforts in the
high crime Mission Corridor area. The grant funds would
specifically be used for (1) police staff training aimed at crime
prevention, with an emphasis on victim services and cultural
and ethnic sensitivity, and (2) community outreach,
empowerment and organizing, through the coordinated
efforts of the Community Police Officer Program (CPOP) and
the San Francisco Safety Awareness for Everybody (SAFE),
Inc., a community based organization which provides crime
prevention services. CPOP and SAFE would work with
Neighborhood Watch groups, the elderly, youth, area service
providers, community groups, businesses and the City to
implement new, non-traditional crime prevention activities.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Budget
Required Match:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Program Administration
Personnel
Police Captain (.05 FTE)
$3,000
Police Officer (.05 FTE)
1.964
Subtotal
$4,964
Operating Expenses
OCJP Training Conference
$300
Travel
472
Contract Services
S. F. SAFE, Inc. (non-profit)
78,555
S. F. Youth Courts, Inc. (non-profit)
1,500
Consultant Services
Cultural/Ethnic Awareness Training
28,820
Audit
1,500
Subtotal
111,147
Indirect Costs
filll
Total
*
'$122,222
* The $122,222 program budget amount includes $110,000 in
State grant monies plus $12,222 in required matching funds.
$12,222, which is included in the Police Department's 1992-93
budget.
$6,111 (5 percent of grant)
1. As noted above, the proposed grant has a start date of July
1. 1992. However, the Police Department reports that no
expenditures have been incurred against these grant funds.
As such, it is not necessary to amend the proposed legislation
to authorize the Department to expend the grant funds
retroactively.
2. The Police Department reports that the grant application,
which had a due date of April 13, 1992, has already been
submitted. Therefore, the proposed legislation should be
amended to authorize the Department to apply for the
proposed grant retroactively.
3. Indirect costs are referenced in the body of the proposed
legislation but not in the title of the legislation. Therefore the
proposed legislation should be amended to reference indirect
costs in the amount of $6,111 in the title of the legislation.
4. A Disability Access Checklist for this program is included
in the Board of Supervisors file.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1Q
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
5. A summary of the proposed grant, as prepared by the
Police Department, is attached.
Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to (1) authorize the
Department to apply for the proposed grant retroactively and
(2 ) reference indirect costs in the amount of $6,111 in the title
of the legislation, and approve the proposed resolution as
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
40
Grant Application Information Form
A document required to accompany a proposed resolution
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant
To: The Board of Supervisors
Attn: Clerk of the Board
The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying
reso luticn :
Department: ^an Francisco Police Department
Contact Person: L '- Larr Y R V an Telephone: 553 ~ 9177
Project Title: Crime Prevention Expansion Project: Mission Corridor
G r ant Soutcp: Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary:
Based upon data gathered via a community needs assessment and crime statistic analysis,
the San Francisco Police Department has developed an innovative approach to expand
crime prevention in the high crime, culturally and ethnically diverse target area. Communit
Police Officer Program (CPOP) has been active in this area for over two years. This
grant emphasizes SFPD training to increase crime prevention efforts, training in victim
services and cultural and ethnic sensitivity; community outreach, empowerment and
organizing using he unique skills of CPOP and San Francisco SAFE, Inc., a community-base
group that provides crime prevention services to San Franciscans. CPOP and SAFE
will work with Neighborhood Watch groups, youth elderiy, area service providers,
community groups, businesses 3nd city government to implement new, non-traditional
crime prevention activities.
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: STIC, 000 .00
Maximum Funding Amount Available: si 1 000.00
Required Matching Funds: $ \7 . 212 .00
Number of Positions Created and Funded:
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $108,875.00
Will Contractual Services be out out to 5id?
NO
Grant Apci :ccCion
Paae 2
nation Form
r«r.T. of Grarsc: July 1, 1992 through June 30. 1993
Date Department Notified of Available funds:
ADDlication Due Date: April 13, I992
Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RrP, grant announcement o:
appropriations legislation):
See Attached
Assessment of Need for Grant Funding:
With current resources limited, the San Francisco Police Department believes that
this OCJP grant funding will enable officers to receive necessary training in
cultural and ethnic sensitivity and victim services. Funding will also 3llow
expansion of crime prevention efforts in this troubled target area that would not
otherwise be available.
Department Head Pkjcrjbji
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 11 -File 146-92-39.1
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project
Description:
Budget
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, to accept and
expend a grant of $42,402 from the State Department of
Health Services for an augmentation of immunization
services; waiving indirect costs.
$42,402
July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993
California Department of Health Services
Immunization Services
The State Department of Health Services previously awarded
a grant of $94,772 (File 146-92-23.1) to the Department of
Public Health (DPH) for fiscal year 1992-93 to provide
immunization services for pregnant women, infants and
children, and persons at risk of Hepatitis B. The proposed
grant is an augmentation grant which would provide 3n
additional $42,402 for this program in order to enhance the
childhood immunization program. The proposed funds
would be used to provide expanded hours at 7 district health
centers by offering evening and Saturday clinics. DPH
expects the expanded hours to result in a 10 percent increase
in the number of children who receive timely immunizations
against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis.
Authorization to apply for the proposed augmentation grant
was approved by the Board of Supervisors through immediate
adoption on June 15, 1992.
Personnel FTE
Registered Nurse .30
Health Worker II £&
Total Salaries .80
Mandatory Fringe Benefits
Total Personnel
Travel
Computer Equipment
Total Proposed Grant Amount
Amount
$15,473
13,596
$29,069
$36,955
447
5JXE
$42,402
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
A3
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Required Match: None
No. of Persons
Served:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Recommendations:
The expanded access at district health centers will enable
DPH to immunize approximately 3,200 additional children in
1992-93.
DPH reports that it is the policy of the State Department of
Health Services not to allow indirect costs for this grant
program.
1. According to DPH, the computer equipment included in
the proposed augmentation grant would be used by the
Registered Nurse for data entry, correspondence, and other
activities related to the activities of the Saturday and evening
clinics. According to Ms. Jane Lev of DPH, the Bureau of
Epidemiology and Disease Control is in the process of seeking
approval from the Electronic Information Processing
Steering Committee (EIPSC) for the proposed computer
equipment. The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that
$5,000 of the proposed grant funds be placed on reserve
pending approval of the proposed equipment by EIPSC.
2. The proposed grant funds will augment the original grant
for the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. However,
Ms. Lev reports that the services funded by the augmentation
grant will be provided only between January 1, 1993 and June
30, 1993. Expenses have not been incurred against the
proposed grant funds, according to Ms. Lev.
4. The Summary of Grant Request submitted by DPH is
attached.
5. Disability Access Checklists for the district health centers
are on file with the Board of Supervisors.
1. Amend the proposed resolution to place $5,000 of the
proposed grant funds on reserve pending approval by EB?SC
of the computer equipment included in the grant budget.
2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
44
flg HTl Com mhSlgl] - Summary of Grant K«r?UCSt | Rev. 4/10/90 |
. -if" -r
: ..„tort; State Dept. of Health Services
, on tact V Person Les Burd
Address^ 2151 Berkeley Way
Jfe. Berkeley. CA 94704
Amount Requested S , 42,402
£& From 7/1/92
^Health Commission _£!££±
To
6/30/93
Division- Comnunity Public Health Ser vice
Sectlon ' Epidemiology & Disease Con trol
Contact -Person Carl os R endon
Telephone 554~2832
Application Deadline July L 199^-Origlna l G
Notification Rrpected October 1. 1992
Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 11/18/92 ___ .
Full Board , , 11/23/92
Request to:feprixfc&(a=ccpt and expend) zHjatabS&iSSS&mS^hsa^&^t (augmentation lo a) |
piant in the amount of S 42.402 fmm the period of 7/1/92 to -6/30/93 ;
to pmvirir- inrnunizations \ services.
I.' Ttem np^crlntlon:
TT. Stimma'-v: < c~-*x*i. —jsmmAU * ~< •—A—rp-.p «>«*.=*-. ^r^") — **•-; -
Supplemental funds for augmenting staff to provide for expanded access for inrnunizations
by offering evening^md'^atu?atla^ a 51"i'ntcs at *t~ Publ4c-Heai-th*-6enters. The implementation
of these services will be invaluable in preventing disease and protecting the well being
of our youngest citizens.
TTT. Outcomes/Objectives:
The number of 4th doses of dUphthe^y^^t£tarms^^ administered in public clinics
to children before their 2nd birthday will incjreaseJiy—LOi-points,. compared to the number
administered to children of identical age during- the preceding-12 month period. -
TV. TXOff< of , RrriuCt'"T' or- Tr-mJTiat'"" of TVi»<« Fu"d*:
Expanded clinics would not be available to those who could not come in during regular
hours thus increasing' the likelihood of some children not adequately irrmunized and
suseptible to what would have been a preventable disease.
V. financial Information:
Col. A
Two Ycitj Ago
81,600
Grant Amount
Personn el
Equipment
"Contract Svc.
Mat. Sz Supp.
Facilities/Sp2ce
Other
Indirect Costs
66,247
5,000
-0-
1,750
-0-
8,603
Col. B
Col- C
Col. TJ
Piii Y=«70ri t - Thi s FY. Year o^atc
94,772 94,772 42,402
88,012
-0-
-0-
2,035
-0-
4,725
88,695
-0-
-0-
900
-0-
5,177
36,955
5,000
-0-
447
Rec. Match Anprnvrd Viv
VTT
F/T CSC
P/T CSC
Contraclual
W7T
Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC ecnlovees =c^^:i^«• :i:;-::dc on this grant:
NONE
Will
;.2nt funded employees be retained after this ;ran: ::.-c : .:::;s? If so, Kow"
NO
-? r \\\?l
LI Open Bid
Soi: Sour:
N/A
AS
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item lm - File 146-92-40.1
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description:
Department of Public Health
Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health,
Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, to
accept and expend a grant of $283,000 which includes indirect
costs in the amount of $14,150 based on 5 percent of the total
award from the State Department of Mental Health Services;
for consultation, education, and information services to San
Francisco residents; providing for ratification of actions
previously taken.
$283,000
July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993
State Department of Mental Health Services
Consultation, Education, and Information Services
The proposed continuation grant would fund 87 percent of the
1992-93 budget for the Consultation, Education, and
Information Unit (CEI Unit) of the Department of Public
Health (DPH) (remaining funds are provided through
Proposition 99 Tobacco Tax revenues). The program is
staffed by professional health educators who provide
information and assistance to community caregivers
(schools, churches, mental health centers, and service
coalitions) and provide information and education services to
individuals under high stress (the severely mentally ill, their
families and caregivers; immigrants and refugees; single
parents, and people who might not otherwise receive services
due to language barriers). According to DPH, these services
are provided in four languages.
The State Department of Mental Health Services administers
these grant funds which are provided by the U.S. Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The
proposed grant is a continuation grant which has been
available since the early 1970's.
DPH reports that the State Department of Mental Health
Services did not solicit grant applications until August 1992,
although the grant period began July 1, 1992. As a result,
DPH reports that expenses have been incurred against the
proposed grant funds. The proposed resolution would
therefore ratify actions previously taken.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
46
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Budget
Required Match:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Personnel
Health Program Coordinator
Mental Health Educator
Assistant Health Educator
Clerk Typist
Total Salaries
Effi Amount
.90
1.75
1.00
1.45
5.10
Fringe Benefits (21 percent)
Total Personnel
Equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs (5 percent of total grant)
Total Grant Amount
None
$48,737
83,655
48,178
41,403
$221,973
46.614
$268,587
263
$268,850
14.150
$283,000
According to DPH, indirect costs are allowed as 5 percent of
the total grant amount of $283,000, or $14,150.
1. Personnel costs have been incurred against the proposed
grant funds since the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1,
1992. Therefore, as previously noted, the proposed resolution
would ratify actions previously taken.
2. The Summary of Grant Request submitted by DPH is
attached.
3. A Disability Access Checklist for the Division of
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services of
DPH is on file with the Board of Supervisors.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
67
amiJ ! ."mrTV
State Dent . of M P n1- a l Hpalfh
' ■' ' ft
Person
Lori McMahan
.rtss
1600 9th St.
Sacramento, CA
95814
v mount
Requested
From
Commlsslo
s 283,000
"erm:
lealth
7/1/92 To
n
6/30/93
Boarc
Div. of Mental Health, Substance
Division Ahugp ^Hrirot
Sect loo Con sul tatinn , FHnration & Tnfnrmal-^nn
Contact Person Nora Goodf riend-Koven, MP H
Telephone ( 415) 255-3662
. ,. ,. n ... September 14, 1992
Application Deadline 1 \
Notification Expected October 30, 1992
Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Full Doard
Ttem Description; Request to Gqepfyxfiox) (accept and expend) a (noaj (continuation) pCiacasm) (j
,c«k .„»^u« — *) gram in the amount ofS 283,000 ^ ^ period of 7/1/92 to .
to provide.
consultation, education & information
services.
T Summary; |Cm«tii«7!MliitM < i naW«pMp«xi«aniai ud^n^tei)
Consultation, Education and Information services are provided to the entire population
of San Francisco. A team of bilingual, bi-cultural MPH and BA level mental health
educators provides these outreach and education services which include support groups',
suicide intervention training and parent skills training. We also consult with DPH
staff on workshops and training.
rTT. Outcome s/Qbir ctive ?:
The population of San Francisco will be more knowledgeable about mental health and
mental illness and be able to access services when necessary.
V. F.n>Ct<: of Rfductinr' nr Tfrwitigtinn of Thf<f 'C»n(5*:
Citizens of San Francisco will not have basic information about mental health and
mental illness and wj.ll not know how and where to access services when necessary.
Financial Information:
FY 90/91'
Col.
Grant Amount
Personnel
Equipment _
Contract Svc.
Mat. L. Supp.
Facilities/Space _
Other _
Indirect Costs'5%)_
3£L n ?'? Prnr'CCJn
i wo Yczn Ago
283.000
230.957
4,646
7,268
10,000
29,329
VTT
800
F/T CSC
P/T CSC
.Contractual
FY 91/92 "FY 92/93
Col. B
Put. Ycir/Ont.
283,000
250,561
1,789
10,000
16,322
12,528
800
Col. C
Proposed
283,000
267,614
1,236
14,150
Col. T)
17.053
- 553
1,622
Rec. Match Approved b^
Source(s) of non-grant fundin" for salaries of CSC emplovees workic; part-time on this grant:
Two 2823 Men tal Health Educator funde d partially" through Prop. 99.
Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How?
Yes, via private foundation funding. They may also be dispersed throughout the
health department if vacant positions become available.
•? f ti'?i q.rvir.c; Open Bid
Sol: So:
AS
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Ttem In -File U6-92-S4
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH),
Special Programs for Youth (SPY)
Item: Resolution authorizing the DPH to apply for, accept and expend
a grant of $66,774 which includes indirect costs in the amount
of $11,070 based on 20 percent of salaries and fringe benefits
from the American Foundation for AIDS Research, to
investigate the epidemiology of high risk adolescents in San
Francisco; providing for ratification of action already taken.
Grant Amount: $66,774
Grant Period: January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993
Source of Funds: American Foundation for AIDS Research
Project: Investigation of the Epidemiology of High Risk Adolescents in
San Francisco
Description: The proposed grant would fund a study of the behavioral risk
factors for HrV among San Francisco's high risk youth, and to
evaluate the relationship between client behaviors, Sexually
Transmitted Diseases (STD) and HrV seropositivity. The data
would be collected from three community clinics serving San
Francisco's homeless, runaways and youth involved in the
juvenile justice system. The results of the study would help DPH
design intervention policies to prevent the further spread of the
HIV infection.
Amount
Budget:
FTE
Epidemiologist I
Fringe @ 26%
Subtotal
1.0
Indirect Costs @ 20%
Total Grant Budget
1.0
Required Match:
None
No. of Persons
Served:
San Francisco's HIV hig
fh risk y
$43,930
11.422
$55,352
11, 070
$66,422
Indirect Costs: $11,070 based on 20 percent of salaries and fringe benefits.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Comments: 1. The application for the proposed grant application was
submitted on August 25, 1992. Therefore, the proposed
resolution provides for ratification of action already taken.
2. The DPH submitted a budget of $66,422 for the proposed
grant. However, the proposed resolution would authorize the
DPH to apply for, accept and expend a grant of $66,774, or
$352 more than the DPH's budget. Therefore, the proposed
resolution should be amended to reduce the grant amount by
$352, from $66,774 to $66,422.
3. Attached is the Summary of Grant request form submitted
by DPH.
4. A copy of the Disability Checklist is included in the Board of
Supervisors file.
Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to reduce the grant amount by
$352, from $66,774 to $66,422 as described in Comment 2.
Approve the proposed resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
sn
Grantor ■ AMFRTrRN FOfTNnATTnN FOR ATPS R ESEARCH Division CPH.S
Contact Ttrson Section J^pH^I P marrire for Y cuttyTcm Waddall
Address 5900 WLLEhire Bl, 2nd Floor Contact Person Ame fferie Benedicto
Los Angeles, CA 93036-5032 Telephone 753-7778
Amount Requested S &>,T14 Application Deadline .Allgilfit 2*}. 1992
Term: From 01/01/33 To 12/31/93 Notification Expected
Health Commission Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Fall Doard
T. Item Description: Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (o
<c". ' rrr ^ iA *' grant in the amount of S 66,774 from the period of Jan 1 1593 to Dec 31 1993 '
in prcnTTifrr ira>pRHrprP By* (apirtarrinlnrjy Ot HTV/ATTF; Pnrrrj high ri^fr arhlppnpnl-.'trrvir^c
This is a research grant enacbed to study the behavicraL ride factors for HIV among an Francisco's high
ride youth, and to evaluate the relationship between client berHviors, STDs and HTY sercpositivity. The
data will hp gathered frcm three cnnnxiitv clinics serving San Francisco's hopeless, runaway and youth
involved in Htp juvenile justice system. The results of this study will help design inberventicn poli—
cies to rreafent further F rread of infection.
TTT. Outcomes/Oblfctlves:
(1) lb describe the behavioral risk factors for HIV ancng San Francisco's high risk youth; (2) to g^al" -
ate the relaticnship between client behavicrs/ STXs and HTY serccositivity; (3) To increase the effec-
tivity of current intervention nrxHs.
TV. F.ffect* of Re duction or Termination of These Fund*:
A field of study that- will inract the inplenrentaticn and design of preaent infaenrenticn ntrels vill not
be developed. Our infeorBtien en rllV-infection and risk enrng San Francisco's high risk youth will not
be miplete.
V. Financial Information; «
Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Reg. Match Approved hr
Two Yean Ago Put Yetr/Orij. Propoted Chin jt
Grant Amount $66,774
Personnel 43,930
Equipment _0
•Contract Svc. _0 ;
Mat. & Supp. __0
Facilities/Space
Other 11,422 (fr inge)
Indirect Costs . 11,070 _
VT. Data Procaine
(coatt tndtufed it-:—- _)
VTT. Personnel
F/T CSC _
P/T CSC _
Contractual
1.0
Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant:
n/a
Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, Hovr?
VO.
•VTIT. C ontractual S'rvic*: Open Bid Sole Source (ir-i>. M «.ois^.«i n brrr'»F,r=)
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item lo - File 146-92-61.1
Department
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description'
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to
accept and expend a grant allocation of $10,782,909 for Fiscal
Year 1992-93 funding from the State Department of Health
Services for California Healthcare for Indigents Program
(CHIP) funds, for medical services to indigent persons,
professional services, medical services contracts, materials
and supplies, facilities rental, personal services and indirect
costs in the amount of $152,841 based on 1.658646 percent of
County Hospital and other Health Services CHIP allocations.
Up to $10,782,909
July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993
State Department of Health Services
California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP)
In 1988, the State Legislature passed the Tobacco Tax and
Health Protection Act, as well as Assembly Bill 99 (AB99) and
Assembly Bill 75 (AB75), which implemented the Tobacco Tax
legislation. Under AB75, Counties may obtain funds for the
California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) in
order to reimburse hospitals, physicians, and other medical
service providers for the cost of providing health care services
to indigent people.
The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of
Public Health (DPH) to accept, and expend up to $10,782,909
in CHIP funds, including $152,841 for indirect costs, for fiscal
year 1992-93. These funds would be used to reimburse health
care providers who have enrolled in the program, including
San Francisco General Hospital, 10 private hospitals, and a
number of private physicians, for the cost of providing health
care services to indigent people.
Budget:
The proposed $10,782,909 budget includes $152,841 in indirect
costs, $436,717 in operating expenses for the CHIP program,
and $10,193,351 for reimbursements to health care providers
for the cost of providing care to indigent persons. These
amounts would be distributed among the three Funds as
follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
52
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
ALLOCATION OF AB 75 GRANT FUNDS
Fund
Hospital Services Fund
County Hospital (SFGH)
Private Hospitals
Physician Services Fund
Reimbursement
to Health Care
Providers
$6,153,315
696,108
748,385
Indirect
Costs
$107,497
Other Health Services Fund (SFGH) 2.595.543
Total Grant Allocations $10,193,351
4 53 4 4
Admin.
Expenses
$220,177
40,514
83,153
92.873
Total
Grant
$6,480,989
736,622
831^38
$152£41 $436,717 $10,782,909
Personnel and operating expenses for the program are
budgeted at $624,037 which exceeds the budgeted allocation
for administrative expenses of $436,717 by $187,320. The
$187,320 shortfall would be paid by funds carried forward
from prior years for administrative expenses, according to
DPH. The $624,037 budget for personnel and operating
expenses is as follows:
PERSONNEL
Salaries
Class
FTE
Amount
Sr. Clerk Typist
1.0
$31^72
Secretary II
1.5
45,702
Head Accountant
1.0
55,439
Principal Administrative Analyst
1.0
68,043
Systems & Procedures Supervisor
1.0
60,249
Health Worker W
1.0
38,707
Senior Health Planner
1.0
50,081
Contracts Manager
1.0
49327
Salary savings
(6.714)
Total Salaries
8.5
Fringe Benefits (@ 25.4 percent)
Total Personnel
$392,106
99,506
$491,612
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
OPERATING EXPENSES
Professional Services $78,593
Equipment Rental 3,627
Auto Mileage 1,032
Travel 1,926
Staff development and training 3,500
Postage, subscriptions, and printing 4,000
Telephone 8,981
Office supplies 1,815
Furniture 5,878
Rental of Property 16,848
Data Processing 725
Services of City Attorney 5.500
Total Operating Expenses
$132,425
TOTAL PERSONNEL & OPERATING EXPENSES
$624,037
1992-93 Grant Funds for Administration
(436.717)
Personnel and Operating Expenses to be Paid
From Funds Carried Forward from Prior Years
$187,320
Required Match: None
No. of Persons
Served:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Approximately 55,500 annually
Indirect costs, at $152,841 are allowed based on 1.658646
percent of the combined allocations to the County Hospital
($6,480,989) and to the Other Health Services Fund
($2,733,760). (See "Allocation of AB 75 Grant Funds" chart,
above.)
1. AB 75 authorizes reimbursements to public and private
hospitals and to private medical providers for the cost of
health care for indigent persons. The reimbursements are
made from three funds established pursuant to the
legislation. The Hospital Services Fund is used to reimburse
San Francisco General Hospital and 10 private hospitals.
The Physician Services Fund is used to reimburse private
physicians who have enrolled in the program. The Other
Health Services Fund is used in San Francisco to reimburse
San Francisco General Hospital for the cost of indigent care.
According to Mr. Leong of the DPH, the amounts available
for each fund are determined by the amount of grant funds
allocated to each fund by the State, and San Francisco has no
discretion to transfer monies from one fund to another. DPH
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
must appropriate the monies allocated to the Hospital
Services Fund and the Physician Services Fund according to
the mandates of State legislation, according to Mr. Leong.
DPH does not have discretion to determine what share of the
Hospital Services Fund will be appropriated to San Francisco
General Hospital or to private hospitals.
The Health Commission does have discretion to determine
how appropriations will be made from the Other Health
Services Fund, according to Mr. Leong. Mr. Leong states
that the Health Commission has appropriated these funds to
San Francisco General Hospital since the inception of the
CHIP program, and will continue this practice in 1992-93.
2. According to Ms. Yvonne Lowe of San Francisco General
Hospital, the Hospital's 1992-93 budget includes $9,091,989 in
expected revenues under the CHIP program. The total
amount actually allocated to San Francisco General Hospital
under the proposed grant would be $8,748,858, or $343,131 less
than the amount included in San Francisco General
Hospital's budget. This allocation of $8,748,858 would consist
of $6,153,315 from the Hospital Services Fund and $2,595,543
from the Other Health Services Fund. (To see how the
$8,748,858 ties into the total $10,782,909 grant, see the
"Allocation of AB 75 Grant Funds" chart, above.)
3. A summary of Grant Request Form, as prepared by the
Department, is attached.
4. A Disability Access Checklist is in the file.
5. The DPH advises that if grant funds are reduced or
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated
accordingly. The proposed grant would support 8.5 FTEs.
6. The proposed grant of $10,782,909 would be $1,631,788, or
approximately 13 percent, less than the preceding year's
grant of $12,414,697.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
55
Rev. 4/10/90
T Jr , State Health Services Dlrlalo* Public Health
Contact r George B. (Peter) Abbott' M.D. $ tc tlo« AB 75 Project
Addre „ 714 P Street, Room 523 - Contact >"«*» Jeffrey Leong AB 75 Coor dlnato
' Sacramento, CA 94234 • Ttltpaoat SIS 5$4-9l62
Amount Reqaottd I ' $10.782,909 Application Dtadtlnt no specific date |
Ttrmt From 07/01/92 T . 06/30/93 Notification *— '" after receipt of *PPlica-
Health ComaaUaloa 8/11/92 Board of S»per*U*r« Finance Coataltlca , on
FoB Baird
y. Ttfm PMtTlptlrai fceqoesta tpp^rfoi (ic ttpt and, expend i (new) (eootiooia») (goaggS) (tugrogititfon to i)
< Q * ^ I, , " > ' pint in dMIBMM Of I~ fr«niha period of U//U1792 ^06/30/93
^y^^ f 10,782 909 - g55,
California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP;
(See attachment, page 2)
TTT. OHteniw>«fnMeftt»e«!
(See attachment, page 2)
TVj .FTrm rf.BftfBftlnr rrr Trrmlnttlrrn nf Ttinr Fundr;
(See attachment, page Z)
V. Flntnclil In form t tip n:
Col- A, C«rt- 8 g«»t- C • CBL p R>q. Match AnvrnrKi hr
Two Years Aeo hnYwtlOrii. Ptoooscd Ctmt*
Grant Amount $17,023,89 8 $12,414,69 7 10,782,909
Personnel 4b4,4/ 5 g>7 ,43 6 411,451
Eqcipatat u _ 10, 4D p
'Contract Src gglg ? .. 31,60 6
Mat. ft Snpp. 8.U0 8,63 8 8.418
Facllitles/Spaea 71,40 1^» 84 8 16.848
Otaar H'723,11 2 10,193,351
ladlract Com 2Q0 »36 1 156,64 152.841
S3. Pitt T > rpff«T"t , ,, .
(not applicable)
V-
V TT. frnnnn.tt
F/T CSC
P/T CSC
Coatractaal
(not applicable)
Soarct(i) of aoa-trant funding for (alariu of CSC employee* working psrt-tlme on this graett
(Not applicable )
Will tract funded employee* be retained after this grant terminate*? If so, Ho*?
AB 99 legislation authorizes continuation of CHIP fundlns through June 30, 1994,
a percentage of which Is used for administrative personnel costs.
*VTTT. Cnntr.rn,! c f rrlrm ft f" Bid x Sols Snares (a—— .—»*-»— a. u-
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 2 - File 188-92-1
Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting of November
4, 1992.
1. This is a hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation
Districts (M/TID)for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric power.
When this item was last heard by the Finance Committee, on October 21, 1992,
specific questions were asked by the Committee to the Budget Analyst, the Hetch
Hetchy General Manager and the City Attorney. This report addresses those
questions.
2. Chronology of Contract Negotiations - Attachment 1 is a copy of the City
Attorney's memorandum concerning the history of negotiations between the City
and County of San Francisco, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the
Modesto/Turlock Irrigation Districts.
3. The Results of Contract Negotiations with the Districts - Attachment 2
to this report provides a memorandum from Hetch Hetchy and the City Attorney
entitled "Benefits and Obligations of the Power Contracts with The Modesto
Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District and Pacific Gas & Electric Company"
in response to this inquiry from the Finance Committee.
4. The City's Options for Re-negotiation of the Contracts - A separate
memorandum explaining the City's options regarding re-negotiation of the terms
and conditions of the PG&E and M/TTD contracts is being prepared by the City
Attorney and Hetch Hetchy. As of the writing of this report, this memorandum is
not available.
5. Reconciliation of Financial Information with San Francisco Bav
Guardian newspaper article - The Budget Analyst was directed to analyze data
published in a newspaper article printed in the SF Bay Guardian regarding
historical trends in equity transfers of surplus funds from Hetch Hetchy to the
General Fund and the costs and benefits of transactions between Hetch Hetchy,
PG&E and M/TID over a sixteen-month period beginning in March 1991 and ending
June 1992. This review is discussed below:
Eauitv Transfers to the General Fund - The graph below provides a
history of transfers to the General Fund for the ten-year period beginning with
fiscal year 1983-84 and ending with the current, 1992-93 fiscal year. The chart
below shows that the graph printed in the Bay Guardian article was substantially
correct. However, the scale of the Bay Guardian chart served to exaggerate the
relative differences between annual transfer amounts by depicting the transfers
over a truncated range of $10 million to $50 million rather than the full range of
zero to $50 million.
board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Equity Transfers to the General Fund bv Fis cal Year (thousands)
$50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
: '■
Charter Section 6.407 specifies the manner in which sin-plus funds may be
transferred from utility funds (i.e. Hetch Hetchy and the Water Department) to the
General Fund. Essentially, up to 25% of a preceding fiscal year's surplus may be
transferred to the General Fund after accounting for operations, maintenance and
repair and needed capital acquisitions and improvements. Therefore, equity
transfers to the General Fund do not entirely result from prior year sales of Hetch
Hetchy's hydroelectric power, but also depend on expenditures for operating and
capital costs, other revenue such as the sale of water, and surplus balances from
past years that had not been transferred to the General Fund.
A further complication that must be taken into consideration when reviewing
Hetch Hetchy transfers to the General Fund is of course the effects of recent
drought years on the system's water supply and resulting net revenue from the
generation of hydroelectric power. The chart on the following page shows the
relationships between these factors.
The chart on the next page compares equity transfers from Hetch Hetchy to
the General Fund on a fiscal year basis with prior year (PY) values for net power
revenue (total hydroelectric power sold less the costs of PG&E services such as
transmission expense and capacity reserve costs and the purchase of power
purchased from PG&E in order to meet contractual obligations).
Also shown on the chart are values for Prior Year Natural Flow, a measure of
total inflows, in acre-feet, for the Tuolumne River system. This provides a relative
comparison, on a year-to-year basis, of water supply available to Hetch Hetchy for
reservoir storage and hydroelectric power generation.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Budget Analyst
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Comparison of Net Power Revenue. Equity Transfers to
General Fund and Water Flow
Water Flow
-r 6,000
Source data for the two charts shown above and on the preceding page are
displayed below.
PYNet
Power
Equity
PY Natural
Revenue
Transfers
Flow (1,000
Fiscal Yr.
(thousands)
(thousands)
Acre-feet)
1983-84
$60,350
$33,295
4,245
1984-85
$59,552
$31,000
3,243
1985-86
$47,252
$50,000
855
1986-87
$60,069
$46,000
3,286
1987-88
$36,740
$40,000
833
1988-89
$28,665
$25,000
808
1989-90
$27,156
$25,000
1,302
1990-91
$34,967
$15,000
864
1991-92
$18,220
$11,000
1,035
1992-93
$33,592
$22,600
851
Hoard of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
SQ
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
6. Costs and Benefits from the Purchase of Supplemental Power from
PG&E to meet M/TID demand - The Finance Committee has directed the Budget
Analyst to reconcile the differences between data reported by the Bay Guardian and
Hetch Hetchy. The Bay Guardian reported that Hetch Hetchy lost approximately
$10.7 million over a sixteen-month period between March 1991 and June 1992.
After conferring with Bay Guardian staff, the Budget Analyst was informed that
their estimate of PG&E bills for services and the purchase of supplemental power
was based on projections, of computed average payments by M/TID for such
purchased power. The Bay Guardian staff then added the cost of capacity reserve
payments to arrive at the $10.7 million loss figure. These calculations are
summarized below:
Bav Guardian Calculations for Period of March 91 to June 92
(in millions)
Calculated cost of Purchased Power from PG&E $ ( 17.3)
Projected M/TID Payments for Purchased Power 12.9
"Sales Loss" $ (4.4)
Mandatory Capacity Reserve Charge (6.3)
Total Loss $(10.7)
In contrast to the Bay Guardian calculations shown above, Hetch Hetchy
reports that during the same sixteen-month period, the City paid PG&E less than
$6.2 million for "supplemental power" to meet the Districts' demands and charged
the M/TID over $6.6 million for the same supplemental power, thereby realizing a
net benefit of over $400,000 instead of the Bay Guardian's calculated "Sales Loss" of
$4.4 million. Hetch Hetchy also reports that Capacity Reserve payments to PG&E
over that same period amounted to $5.98 million, but that this expenditure was
necessary not only to guarantee supplemental power but to provide "firm capacity"
for all power generated by Hetch Hetchy, thereby assuring total revenues from
M/TID of $27.6 million including not only the sale of power purchased from PG&E
but also power generated by Hetch Hetchy itself.
According to Hetch Hetchy, if capacity reserves were not guaranteed by
PG&E, the City would not be able to sell power at firm power rates and therefore
would not have realized total revenues of $27.6 million over this period. Hetch
Hetchy further adds that the contract with PG&E provides "capacity reserve
credits" which reduced supplemental power purchase costs by $7.3 million over the
period analyzed.
The Finance Committee also directed the Budget Analyst to review billings
from PG&E and payments by M/TID. As of the writing of this report, the Budget
Analyst has received source data and an explanation of the PG&E billings for
services to the City during the applicable time period.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
7. Power Market Analysis - The Finance Committee also directed the Budget
Analyst to review any alternative market data or analyses for the services provided
by PG&E to the City and long-term power sales agreements comparable to the
City's contracts with M/TID.
Hetch Hetchy reports that no alternatives exist to the transmission, fir ming
and other services provided by PG&E to the City. Therefore, they are unable to
provide meaningful data to compare with the PG&E agreement.
Hetch Hetchy consultants, Stone & Webster, Inc. have provided a review of
seven other long term power sales agreements in comparison to the City contracts
with M/TID. The consultants note many factors that make comparisons difficult,
such as the buyer/seller relationships, the years the agreements were initiated, the
terms of the contracts, energy requirements and delivery contingencies. Such
factors can cause variations in power prices of between 5% and 25% according to the
consultants.
Hetch Hetchy's consultants conclude that, while acknowledging these
differences, the City's current price for Class 3 power sold to M/TID of 40 mills per
kilowatt hour ($.04) is at the low end of the market, which ranges from 40 to 50
mills per kilowatt hour. The Budget Analyst notes that this difference between the
M/TED contract and other long term markets remains substantially unchanged from
prior reports by the Budget Analyst, based on surveys performed by Hetch Hetchy's
consultants in 1984 and 1988. In these prior reports, the Budget Analyst concluded
that if the M/TID agreements reflected other market data provided by Hetch
Hetchy's consultants, then the City would realize substantially greater revenues.
Despite the fact that greater revenues could be achieved if the M/TED
agreements were comparable to other long term sales contracts, according to Hetch
Hetchy and the City Attorney, no opportunities exist to modify the existing M/TID
agreements through re-negotiation under the contract terms and conditions.
As explained in Attachment 2 to this report, Hetch Hetchy believes that other
contract features provide favorable financial results to the City. These include the
fact that the Districts must pay for all firm power up to the project dependable
capacity of 260 megawatts whether they use such power or not (i.e. "take or pay"),
that the City can automatically increase power and energy for its municipal needs
thereby reducing power supplied to the Districts, and that the City's rates for Class
3 power sold to the Districts escalate based on PG&E's average revenue for energy
and not City costs for hydroelectric generation.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Budget Analyst
fii
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LOUISE H. RENNE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY HALL
DATE:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
RE:
WATER SECTION
Thomas M. Berliner
Joshua D. Milstein
John S. Roddy
Chrishiane Hayashi Trippe
Deputy City Attorneys
(415) 554-4295
MEMORANDUM
October 30, 1992
SUPERVISOR JIM GONZALES
Chair, Finance Committee
Board of Superv:
ANSON B. MORAN
General Manage]
Hetch Hetchy Waf^t-- rfnd Power
THOMAS M. BERLINER r^
Deputy City Attorney
History of Negotiations With Pacific Gas & Electric
Company and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation
Districts Concerning Power Sales Contracts
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84)
Pursuant to your reguest attached is a chronology of events
leading up to the current power sales contracts with PG&E and the
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (sometimes referred to
as MID, TID or collectively as "Districts").
T . M . B
Enclosure
w/ enc .
Sup. Hallinan
Sup. Migden
Budget Analyst
T. La key
1470P/3
6?
Attachment 1
Fage 2 of 3
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO POWER CONTRACTS WITH THE MODESTO
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND PACIFIC GAS
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
DATES COMME NTS
1945 City signs contract with PG&E for supplemental
power and support services. (Contract expires
1987, per amendments.)
1973 City signs power sales contracts with Districts.
Sold total output of Hetch Hetchy Project as
"firm" power .
Nov. 1973 OPEC oil crisis escalated market rates. Over
next several years City derived substantial
revenues from PG&E "assigned customers."
1978 City unsuccessfully litigates with Districts to
raise rates for power.
1979 Airlines unsuccessfully sue City re power of PUC
to set rates.
July, 1980 Hetch Hetchy solicits 15 public agencies for
interest in purchase of Hetcli Hetchy power.
1981 Hetch Hetchy consultant, Auslam & Associates,
recommended Districts, Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) as potential customers.
1981-19821/ PG&E informs City that next PG&E contract would
be on same terms as current contract, but without
assigned customers.
1981-1982 City negotiates with Districts on basis of PG&E
representations .
1983 PG&E changes contract parameters and informs City
that if City negotiates firm power sales
contracts, City must pay for firming services.
(See 1981-82.) PG&E elects to contract directly
with Districts for support services.
PG&E discovers failure to escalate rate base from
1973. Cost to PG&E of approximately $4
mi 11 ion/year .
1/ In late 1981 or early 1982, PG&E orally informed Dean
Coffey - exact date unknown.
63
A t tac hment 1
'Page 3 ot 3
DATES COMMENTS
1983 Districts discuss purchase of firm power from
City. Districts will purchase additional power
elsewhere .
Late 1983 Districts contend Hetch Hetchy not firm power so
would pay us "dump power" (5-7 mills). Hetch
Hetchy discusses firming with PG&E. City
negotiates with Districts concerning firm power
rates .
1984 Auslam and Associates' report recommends sale
price of between 30-40 mills/kwh based upon
amounts of power available from Pacific Northwest
and Southwest.
Aug. 1984 MID prepared to sign contract with City; breaks
away from TID. Proposed contract at 40 mills.
Sept. 1984 Rep. Tony Coelho's introduces legislation for TID
to compel City power sales at "cost."
Legislation passes House of Representatives.
Sen. Wilson objects on procedural grounds. City
negotiates with Districts, meets with Rep.
Coelho. Coelho outlines terms for agreement
including: 30-year contract, price of 23 mills,
District priority to power, right to use excess
Hetch Hetchy transmission and capacity, and other
conditions .
Sept. 1984 City and Districts sign "principles."
May, 1985 Board of Supervisors approves 2-1/2 year "Interim
Agreements" with Districts. City to sell bulk of
power above City's municipal needs to Districts
for 30 years, at 36.25 mills (price includes
capacity charge), plus escalation, and other
"Coelho" terms.
June, 1985 Prior contracts with Districts expire. Replaced
by Interim Agreement.
July, 1985 City and Districts sign "Amplil Led Pi Lnciples."
Dec. 1987 PG&E 1945 contract, as amended, expires.
Jan. 1988 "Extension Agreement" with Districts becomes
effective. Present agreement with PG&E becomes
ef feet i ve .
Feb. 1988 Board of Supervisors hearing on powei contracl
April, 1988 Long Term Agreements with Districts bei "me
effect i ve .
1470P/4
64
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Attachment 2_
Page 1 of - 6"
LOUISE H. RENN6
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY HALL
WATER SECTION
Thomas M. Berliner
Joshua D. Milstein
John S. Roddy
Christiane Hayashi Trippe
Deputy City Attorneys
(415) 554-4295
M..E M ORANDUM
DATE:
November 5, 19 92
TO:
FROM:
RE
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ
Chair, Finance Committee
Board of Supervisors
ANSON B . MORAN ( f£j\
General ManageA ' J
Hetch Hetchy Wafcea^and Power
THOMAS M. BERLINER
Deputy City Attorney
Benefits and Obligations of the Power Contracts With
the Modesto Irrigation District, TurlocK Irrigation
District and Pacific Gas & Electric Company
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84)
Pursuant to your request, the following summarizes the
benefits and obligations which resulted generally from the power
sales contracts with the Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock
Irrigation District, and the support services contract with
Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
You
Districts
debate bo
of Superv
contracts
analysis
consul tan
analyze t
condition
the contr
revenues
will
and t
th bef
isors .
- inc
by PUC
t s , in
he con
Bas
acts p
over p
recal
he PG
ore t
The
ludin
staf
cludi
tract
ed up
rovid
rior
1 that
&E cont
he Publ
re were
g one w
f, the
ng cons
s in t h
on this
ed the
contrac
both the C
ract recei
ic Utiliti
numerous
hich Mayor
Budget Ana
ultants re
eir post-n
analysis ,
City with
ts, met th
ity contrac
ved extensi
es Commissi
hearings co
Agnos atte
lyst, and o
tained spec
egoti ated,
City leade
a substanti
e City ' s ne
ts wi
ve an
on an
ncern
nded,
utsid
i t" i c a
pre-a
rs co
al in
eds f
th the
alysis and
d the Board
ing both
extensive
e
lly to
cceptance
ncluded that
crease in
or disposal
Attachment 2
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page 2 of t>
Chair, Finance Committee 2 November 5, 1992
Board of Supervisors 1508P
of its Hetch Hetchy power, and protected the City from system
failures and water supply shortages due to drought.
In reviewing the benefits and obligations, one must keep in
mind that each party to a contract will have its own vision of
the benefits and obligations which accrued. Furthermore, during
the life of a contract, depending upon events, what may have
started out to be a benefit or obligation in general, may not be
perceived as such at all times.
BENEFIT S AND OB LI GATIONS OF POWER SALES C ONTRACTS TO THE
MODES TO IRRIGATION AND TURLOCK IRRIGAT ION DISTRICT.
The agreements between the City and Districts are in two
parts. The first phase of the agreement lasted 2-1/2 years. It
was known as the "Interim" agreement. The second phase of the
agreement is the "long-term" agreement and covers the remaining
27-1/2 years of the contract. The terms and conditions of both
the Interim and long-term agreements were dictated in large part
by the principles agreed to in 1984. These principles were the
result of an intensive negotiation during the month of September,
1904 following the introduction by Rep. Tony Coehlo of
legislation which would have prevented the City from selling its
Hetch Hetchy power for a profit. The basic principles and the
subsequent amplification to these principles formed the basis for
the long term agreement which is now in effect. The major
provisions are set forth below.
BENEFITS .
1. During the first 2-1/2 years of the agreement (Interim
Agreement) all sales by the City to the Districts were deemed
"firm.' 1 This maximized revenues from City power.
2. During the first 2-1/2 years of the agreement (Interim
Agreement) the Districts were obligated to pay for half of the
charges from PG&E for firming services. This was a "pass
through" of PG&E charges.
3. The Districts will pay a portion of the firming costs
($700,000 per year) to "firm" their Class 1 power entitlements
under the Raker Act. Prior to this contract, their Class 1 power
entitlements were on an "as available" basis.
4. The Districts must pay for firm power up to 260 MW,
whether they use it or not (i.e. "take or pay"). That is, the
Districts are obligated to pay the City during the life of the
contract for the amount of power that they have committed to
Atta chm ent 2
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page T~ of 6
Chair, Finance Committee 3 November 5, 1992
Board of Supervisors 1508P
purchase. Should the Districts develop other resources which
could provide them power cheaper than available from this
contract, they will nevertheless have to pay the City for the
full amount of their committment.
5. The price for Class 3 (commercial) power was initially
established on the basis of a market rate and will escalate
pursuant to increases in PG&E rates.
5.1 Rate changes will be based on a 5-year trend
analysis of PG&E rates, thereby smoothing sharp
increases or decreases in rates.
6. The Districts must purchase firm power at a 65%
"capacity factor." This capacity factor recognizes the City's
need to balance its primary water supply obligations with its
firm power committments.
7. If the project dependable capacity (PDC) of the Hetch
Hetchy project decreases, the City will reduce its obligation to
the Districts. If PDC is decreased due to an "uncontrollable
force," the City is obligated to meet the initial PDC for only 90
days .
8. If the City's municipal load increases, it will reduce
its firm capacity committments to the Districts by an equivalent
amount .
9. Half of all excess energy generated by the Hetch Hetchy
project may be served to the City's airport tenant customers. In
the event excess energy is generated above that required by the
Districts, the City may serve this energy to Norris Industries
and PG&E assigned customers.
v 10. The rate for non-firm energy is the lower of the firm
energy rate for Class 3 purchases or the rate available to the
City under long term alternative non-firm sales agreements. The
initial alternative rate is established at the energy cost
adjustment clause (ECAC) or fuel cost component of an applicable
PG&E rate approved by the California Public Utilities
Commission. The ECAC rate is a very competitive rate at this
time .
11. In the event of "uncontrollable forces" the City's
performance under the contract will be excused under specified
ci rcum3tances .
Attachment 2
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page h of 6
Chair, Finance Committee 4 November 5, 1992
Board of Supervisors 1508P
12. The Districts and City agree not to initiate, cause,
support or engage in any attempt to frustrate the terms and
conditions of this agreement or the integrity of the Raker Act.
13. If third parties cause impacts to either the contract
or the Raker Act which diminish the benefits of the agreement,
the parties agree to amend the agreement so as to realize the
mutual benefits anticipated by the agreement.
OBL IGATIONS .
1. The City is committed to selling power to the Districts
for a total of 30 years. The contract expires June, 2015.
2. Since the Districts are paying for firming services,
the City must supply the Districts with Class 1 power even if it
is not rotherwise available from Hetch Hetchy.
3. The rate for Class 3 power will escalate based on a
five-year trend analysis of PG&E rates. This will cause rate
changes to lag somewhat, however it will have the impact of
smoothing rates rather than causing sharp increases or
decreases .
4. If excess capacity exists above the Hetch Hetchy
project dependable capacity (PDC) of 260 MW, the Districts have
the right to make use of it, but must pay the City for any
additional costs incurred to serve airport tenants. Costs for
other customers are not recoverable.
5. If the City increases the PDC of the Hetch Hetchy
project, the Districts are entitled to purchase the increase in
firm capacity.
6. The Districts have a right of first refusal to at least
one-half of the available non-firm energy generated by the Hetch
Hetchy project.
7. The Districts may use excess transmission capacity of
the Hetch Hetchy lines to the extent such usage does not
interfere with the City's use of the transmission facilities.
BENE FITS A ND OBLIG ATIONS FROM THE
SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PG &E .
BENEFITS .
1. The contract with PG&E is for the same length of time
as the contracts with the Districts.
Attachmen t 2
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Fage b of ~E~
chair. Finance Committee 5 November 5, 1992
Board of Supervisors 1508P
2. PG&E must provide the City with the firming services
City requests for City's municipal loads and firm sales to
Districts .
3. Services from PG&E are on "if and as needed basis."
There is no charge for services not used.
4. PG&E will provide supplemental power when Hetch Hetchy
generation is not sufficient to meet its firm committments or is
needed for maintenance or emergency outages.
5. PG&E provides capacity reserve services for Hetch
Hetchy for use during emergency and maintenance outages.
6. PG&E will provide up to 59.8 MW of capacity credits
against purchases of supplemental power. The City/PG&E contract
is the: only PG&E contract which contains this provision.
7. In the event the City needs to purchase supplemental
capacity in excess of the available capacity credit for District
obligations, it will not be charged a premium for purchases
during peak periods nor will it be required to pay for this
capacity in months when it is not used. That is, there is no
■ rachet." (The "rachet" does apply to purchases for airport
tenants and Norris Industries.)
8. The City obtained firm committments for the
transmission of Hetch Hetchy power to the City for municipal
needs and the right to purchase up to 200 MW of transmission in
order to meet future increases in the City's municipal load.
9. Disagreements over rates may be litigated before the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which limits rates to
"cost of service," which includes the authorized rate of return.
10. If more economical energy is available from other
sources, the City may purchase it without obligation or penalty
to PG&E.
11. If more economical power or services are available
from other sources, the City may purchase them subject to
notifying PG&E, and PG&E may request contract renegotiation as a
result of City's purchase decisions.
12. The City will be entitled to sell excess energy to
PG&E's' large industrial customers, i.e. "assigned customers."
The Ci'ty/PG&E contract is the only PG&E contract which contains
this provision.
fig
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Att a chmen t 2
Chair, Finance Committee 6 November 5, 199? a S e & of F
Board of Supervisors 1508P
OBLIGATIONS .
1. The City must purchase capacity reserves from PG&E
since at present PG&E is the only provider.
2. In the event City needs to purchase supplemental
capacity for airport tenants or Norris Industries, a "rachet"
will apply which will raise the quantity of capacity which the
City must purchase for these customers to the highest demand in
the current month or the preceeding 11 months, which ever is
greater.
3. The only available transmission and distribution path
for the delivery of Hetch Hetchy power to the City for its
municipal needs is through PG&E. The City must purchase and pay
for these services.
4. Rates under the contract are subject to periodic
renegotiation. (This issue is placed in the "obligation-
category because it is expected that under normal circumstances
rates will increase, not decrease.)
A.B.M./T.M.B.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 3 - File 100-92-9
Note: This item was continued from the November 4, 1992 Finance
Committee meeting.
This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for
the City and County of San Francisco.
On October 27, 1992 a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office,
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the
following:
Airport Advance - ($25 million) Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport reports that
the airlines met on November 6, 1992 to further discuss revisions to the proposed
agreement. A copy of the revised agreement is in the Board file. As of the writing of
this report, Ms. Gittens indicates that all of the 19 airlines have agreed to the
proposed arrangements regarding the $25 million advance to the City.
PUC Eauitv Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million) These PUC funds
include equity transfers from the Water Department ($2.5 million), Hetch Hetchy
($2.5 million) and the revenues from the sale of Water Department property to the
Olympic Club ($2.2 million). Mr. Ed Harrington, the City Controller, reports that
agreement has been reached with the City Attorney regarding the PUC Equity
Transfers and that the PUC is currently drafting the necessary documents to enable
these fund transfers to occur.
Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's
General Fund. However, the City Attorney has raised some questions regarding the
legality of this transfer of funds, and is currently reviewing this issue. The City
Attorney is anticipated to issue an opinion on this matter, in the immediate future.
On October 27, 1992, the Chair of the Finance Committee wrote a letter to
Mayor Jordan requesting that these budget matters proposed by the Mayor as part
of the 1992-93 budget be expedited by the Mayor's Office to enable the City's 1992-
93 budget to be balanced.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
71
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 4 - File 198-92-3
Department: Municipal Court
Item: Resolution authorizing the appointment of a Commissioner
for the San Francisco Municipal Court and assuming all
costs as required by State Law.
Description: In 1992 the State legislature amended the State Government
Code Section 70141 to allow the San Francisco Municipal
Court to appoint one additional Commissioner position. The
State Government Code is the embodiment of State legislative
policy that regulates operations of the Municipal Courts and
designates the number of Judges and Commissioners which
each Municipal Court may appoint. Pursuant to State Law
(Government Code and Code of Civil Procedure) a
Commissioner may set bail for prisoners and may determine
whether a prisoner may be released from custody on their
own recognizance
In an effort to reduce overcrowding at the County Jails, the
San Francisco Municipal Court is proposing to appoint one
new Commissioner for the purpose of reviewing new cases to
determine if the accused persons can be released on their
own recognizance instead of being incarcerated in the County
Jails while awaiting trial. The proposed new Commissioner
position would be appointed for a six-month period as a pilot
project to determine the extent that jail overcrowding could be
reduced by having a Commissioner that would deal
exclusively with own recognizance determinations. The
function of reviewing cases for releasing on own
recognizance is currently performed by a regular Judge on
lunch hours and in the afternoons after the Judge's regular
duties have been completed. According to the Municipal
Court, the Judge's regular duties must be curtailed promptly
at 4:00 P.M., in order for the Judge to have the time necessary
to complete all own recognizance reviews, even when such
curtailment is not convenient for the matter at hand.
Presently there are ten Commissioners at the Superior Court
who hear domestic relations, probate, civil and juvenile cases
and three Traffic Referees at the Municipal Court who hear
parking, moving protest and small claim cases. The
Municipal Court would like to upgrade the Traffic Referees to
Commissioner status in order to allow them to hear a greater
variety of types of cases. There are currently no
Commissioners at the Municipal Court. However, the
proposed resolution is to establish one new Commissioner
position.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
The proposed new Commissioner's salary would be set at 85
percent of a Municipal Court Judge's salary, or at $77,081
annually plus fringe benefits of approximately $19,270.
According to Mr. Gordon Park-Li, the Administrator of the
Municipal Court, the Special Master appointed by the Federal
Court to monitor the Jail Overcrowding Consent Decree (for
the case of Stone vs. the City and County of San Francisco)
has determined that the fines levied against the City for not
complying with the Consent Decree (currently totaling
approximately $2.9 million) can be used as the source of
funding for the proposed new Commissioner position and
any, corresponding support staff service costs. However, Mr.
Park-Li indicates that there would not be any additional costs
for support staff services for the proposed new Commissioner
position because such services are currently being performed
by existing Municipal Court staff.
Comments: 1. The proposed resolution would simply establish the intent
of the Board of Supervisors to establish one new
Commissioner position. However, the proposed resolution
would not amend the Annual Salary Ordinance to create a
new position and would not amend the Annual
Appropriation Ordinance to budget the funding for the new
position. Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors approves this
proposed resolution, the Municipal Court would then submit
separate legislation to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance
and to amend the Annual Appropriation Ordinance.
2. During the six month pilot project, the affects of the new
Commissioner position on reductions in jail overcrowding
will be assessed before the proposed new position would be
requested as a permanent position in the Municipal Court's
1993-94 budget. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be
amended to stipulate that the proposed new Commissioner is
a limited term (L classification) position.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to stipulate that the
proposed new Commissioner is a limited term (L
classification) position.
2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
73
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
Item 5- File 195-92-11
Item
This item is a request to consider a long-range plan to alleviate jail
overcrowding.
Consent Decree
The City and County of San Francisco signed a Consent Decree in May, 1982
providing that, except for weekends and holidays, housing areas of the County
Jail would not house more than their rated capacities (Stone versus the City and
County of San Francisco . May, 1982). In October, 1988, the Federal Court which
monitors the Consent Decree ordered that the City be fined $300 per violation of the
Consent Decree at County Jail #1, located in the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant
Street. A violation consists of each inmate each day above the rated capacity. The
rated inmate capacity for County Jail #1 is 426.
According to the Sheriffs Department, in the past, the jail population of
County Jail #1 has typically exceeded 426 three to four months each year.
However, since FY 1991-1992, the jail populations have been higher than in other
years. For the six month period of August 1, 1991 to February 1, 1992, the
population of County Jail #1 exceeded its legal capacity 6,696 times, or an average
of approximately 24 inmates over the legal capacity per day for 279 days.
For each violation of the Consent Decree, the City may be fined $300. Any
fines collected would be dedicated to alleviate jail overcrowding in San Francisco.
Currently, $2.79 million for fines from January 2, 1992 to August 30, 1992, is in
escrow, pending a decision by the Court as to whether fines should be collected
when stays of execution are in place. In addition, fines for September, 1992 of
$161,400, and for October, 1992 of $280,000 are in escrow. These fines are not in
dispute.
Background
San Francisco jails currently house two major groups of inmates: pre-trial
felons; convicted, pre-sentenced felons; and sentenced misdemeanants. Because
of jail overcrowding, the Sheriffs Department no longer holds inmates for other
agencies, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, or other counties, except for Federal prisoners from
the U.S. Marshall. In general, all pre-trial misdemeanants are released on bail,
on their Own Recognizance, through the Sheriffs Supervised Citation Project, or
through the Pretrial Diversion Project, except for domestic violence cases. (The
Pretrial Diversion Project consists of an opportunity for a first-time accused
misdemeanant to complete an individual program, such as community service or
classes; if the program is completed, charges are dropped.) Sentenced felons
carry out their sentences at State or Federal prisons, unless they are sentenced to
one year or less in jail. The Sheriffs Department is reimbursed for costs
associated with Federal prisoners.
7/.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
According to Mr. Dennis Aftergut of the City Attorney's Office, the Federal
Court previously authorized the City to ameliorate jail overcrowding in two ways:
(1) to release sentenced inmates at 70 percent of their sentences; and (2) with
respect to pretrial detainees, under the Court's order, the Sheriff can cite out
certain persons accused of misdemeanors who could otherwise not be cited out
under State law. According to Mr. Aftergut, the Court-appointed monitor
estimates that these provisions reduce the population in all four County jails by a
total of 500 per day as of 1989. (The Court-appointed monitor has not made a more
recent estimate.)
Pre-Trial Felons
The portion of the San Francisco jail population which is pre-trial felons (77
percent) is higher than most California Counties. For example, according to the
Santa Clara Department of Corrections, 50 percent of the Santa Clara County's
jail population are pre-trial felons. Mr. Newton Lamb of the Mayor's Criminal
Justice Council advises that most California counties' jail populations are
approximately 50 percent pre-trial felons. Mr. Lamb reports that one reason San
Francisco's pre-trial felon population is disproportionately high is that the
Federal Court's jail population management programs, described in the
preceding paragraph, are directed at the sentenced population. According to
Deputy Babe Franey of the Sheriffs Department, the second reason for this
disproportionately high pre-felon population is that 60 percent of sentenced
prisoners complete their sentences in alternatives to incarceration, such as
County Parole or Work Furlough.
Pre-trial felons may be released pending trial either through bail programs
(only those accused of a capital offense, when the proof of guilt is evident or the
presumption of guilt is great, are automatically ineligible for bail), or through the
Own Recognizance Program, where pre-trial felons are interviewed and later
evaluated for possible release on their own recognizance by the Court. According
to Chief Arlene Sauser of the Adult Probation Department, Adult Probation has
proposed a program for pre-trial felons, whereby such pre-trial felons could be
released on probation with supervision 24 hours a day. Chief Sauser advises that
with two Probation Officers and an electronic monitoring contract, the jail
population could be reduced by 40 to 50 beds per day. Release of prisoners on their
own recognizance is at the discretion of the Court, and use of a pre-trial felon
probation program would be similarly discretionary.
Sentenced Misdemeanants
Sentenced misdemeanants or felons on probation may carry out their
sentences either in jail or through alternatives to incarceration programs. These
alternative programs include the Work Furlough Program, the Electronic
Monitoring Device Program, Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Programs, and the
County Parole Program. Such alternatives to incarceration programs are used at
the discretion of the Court, with the approval of the Sheriff. Chief Sauser advises
that currently, approximately 5,000 misdemeanants are on probation. Sgt.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
Richard Dyer of the Sheriffs Department advises that a new Work Furlough
facility, including 320 beds, is currently under construction at the Hall of Justice.
This facility is anticipated to be completed in early 1994, Sgt. Dyer reports.
Pre-sentenced Felons
When an accused felon is convicted, the case is automatically continued 28
legal days for sentencing. During this period, the Adult Probation Department
investigates the individual and makes recommendations for sentencing. In fiscal
year 1991-1992, the Board of Supervisors approved and the Adult Probation
Department implemented a program whereby the investigation period was
accelerated from 28 days to 21 days. Two additional Probation Officers were hired.
Thus, the average county jail stay between plea and sentencing for convicted
felons was reduced from 28 days to 21 days.
As noted above, alternatives to incarceration programs are at the discretion
of the Court, with the approval of the Sheriff. According to Sgt. Dyer, issues of
public safety must be considered when releasing pre-trial felons, since social
service agencies may define adequate supervision differently than the justice
system. However, according to Mr. Irv Reichert of the Own Recognizance
Program, the 19 Duty Judges vary significantly in their use of the Own
Recognizance Program (OR). According to Mr. Reichert, the Duty Judges vary
from 3 percent to 70 percent in their use of the OR Program. The only way the City
can be absolutely assured that funding to relieve jail overcrowding will actually
relieve jail overcrowding is by funding jail beds. However, as of the writing of this
report, the Budget Analyst has not been provided with any hard documentation
that alternative programs are underutilized. Sgt. Dyer advises that the Work
Furlough Program, which includes 66 beds, is consistently used at capacity.
Renting jail beds is generally more costly than alternative programs. A
rented jail bed in Alameda County costs $63.10 per bed per day. By comparison, a
bed in a Residential Rehabilitation Program can range from $45 to $85 per bed per
day, depending on the facility, and the inmate receives drug rehabilitation
services in addition to food and shelter. Work Furlough beds cost $39.25 per bed
per day; Electronic Monitoring costs $30.25 per person per day, according to Sgt.
Dyer. Many alternatives to incarceration programs provide more services than
jails.
Appropriations and Supplemental Appropriations
To alleviate jail overcrowding, in August, 1991 the Board of Supervisors
approved a Supplemental Appropriation totalling $500,000. That supplemental
appropriation funded: (1) 862 work furlough beds to a private San Francisco
agency; (2) expanding the County Parole Program to supervise 25 additional
parolees; and (3) placing additional employees at County Jail #7 (San Bruno) to
increase its capacity by 60. These programs have received funding in the FY 1992-
93 budget.
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
To further alleviate overcrowding, in March, 1992, the Board of Supervisors
approved a supplemental appropriation of approximately $1.8 million for the
Sheriffs Department to rent jail beds in Alameda County, at a cost of $63. 10 per
bed per diem. $4,606,300 was included in the FY 1992-93 budget for such jail bed
rentals, which would support 200 beds per day for 365 days. According to Deputy
Franey, in fact, an average of 230 beds were rented per day through October 22,
1992, and an average of 240 beds have been rented per day since October 23, 1992.
The Sheriffs Department has submitted a supplemental appropriation request to
support these additional beds. (See below.)
In addition, funds for 10 beds at Walden House Residential Drug Treatment
Program and 10 beds at Milestones residential drug treatment program were
included in the FY 1992-93 budget. However, the Sheriff has used an additional 10
beds per day at Walden House, for a total of 20 beds, and an additional 15 beds per
day at Milestones, for a total of 25 beds. The Sheriffs Department has submitted a
supplemental appropriation request to support these additional beds. (See below.)
As noted in the paragraph entitled "Pre- sentenced Felons," above, in fiscal
year 1991-1992 the Board of Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation to
hire two additional Probation Officers to reduce the investigation period for pre-
sentenced, jailed felons from 21 days to 28 days. This program continues to be
funded in the FY 1992-93 budget.
On November 2, 1992, the Sheriff submitted a supplemental appropriation
request to the Mayor's Office for a total of approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5
million would fund the additional beds at Alameda County and at Walden House
and Milestones, as well as the following:
Additional Rented Jail Beds in Alameda County
30 rented jail beds per day
($63. 10 per bed per day; 365 days) $690,945
10 additional rented jail beds per day
($63. 10 per bed per day, 251 days) 158,381
Unpaid balance for rented jail beds, FY 1991-92 72,565
Extra floor at Alameda County, including 121 beds
plus San Francisco County personnel
(approximately $78 per day, 251 days) 2.369.609
Total rented jail beds in Alameda County $3,291,500
Residential Drug Treatment Beds
12 beds at Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
($52 per day; 181 days) 112,944
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
50 beds at Eclectic Communications, Inc.
($50 per day, 181 days) 452,500
20 additional beds at Walden House
($60 per day, 273 days) $327,600
25 additional beds at Milestones
($45 per day, 273 days) 307.125
Total Residential Drug Treatment Beds 1,200,169
Municipal Court Study
(to identify and evaluate risk assessment methods
for release of pre-trial felons) 60.000
Total Supplemental Appropriation Request $4,551,669
The Sheriff also submitted a supplemental appropriation request to the
Mayor's Office in September, 1992, for $800,000 for overtime. According to Deputy
Franey, the Sheriffs Department has nearly depleted its budgeted overtime,
because extra hours are required to transport prisoners to Alameda County and to
manage the high numbers of inmates.
Neither supplemental appropriation request has been forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors by the Mayor's Office.
Bond Measures
In November, 1992, the San Francisco electorate disapproved a proposition
(Proposition B) authorizing a bond issue of $158.1 million for the purpose of
constructing replacement housing and associated health and safety
improvements at the San Bruno jail (County Jail Numbers 3 and 7).
In November, 1990, the San Francisco electorate authorized $16.5 million of
Correctional Facilities Improvement Bonds (Proposition A), as the local match to
$39.5 million in State grants for the construction of a new jail medical facility, a
larger work furlough facility, and for making health, safety and other
improvements to the jails. These funds were expended to construct a new building
in the Hall of Justice parking lot containing a new booking/release area, a
centralized medical and psychiatric treatment and housing area for prisoners in
the jail system, a work furlough program, and space for associated operational
and administrative functions.
Past Reports
On June 20, 1991, the Criminal Justice Administrative Group (CJAG)
submitted a long term overcrowding plan to the Federal Court, entitled San
Francisco Jail Population Management Plan . This plan, which is apparently the
only long term overcrowding plan that has been submitted to the Federal Court,
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
was described to the Board of Supervisors in June, 1991 (File 195-91-2). The CJAG
consists of representatives from the various City justice system departments, the
Mayor's Office and the Department of Public Health. The CJAG plan included
several proposals, which are in various stages of implementation. These include
continued meetings and recommendations by CJAG, increased use of
alternatives to incarceration programs, such as Own Recognizance, Pretrial
Diversion, and use of County Parole,
In October, 1991, the 1990-91 Civil Grand Jury transmitted its Final Report,
which included recommendations on the jails. The Grand Jury's
recommendations included a continued commitment to the CJAG's overcrowding
plan; that future Civil Grand Juries should monitor the progress of the Plan; and
that a mechanism be created to alert the Sheriff and the CJAG if the Plan's
projected bed savings assumptions are not being met.
V
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 6 - File 101-92-8
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD)
Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance to fund the Dispute
Resolution Program for permanent salaries and professional
special services contracts for the period from October 1, 1992,
through September 30, 1993.
$220,624
Special Revenue Funds - Dispute Resolution Program ($3.00
surcharge on various Municipal and Superior Court filing
fees).
In December of 1986, the City and County of San Francisco
established a funding source for a Dispute Resolution
Program in accordance with the State Dispute Resolution
Programs Act of 1986 by adding a $3.00 surcharge to various
Municipal and Superior Court filing fees. By October 1988,
sufficient funds from the surcharges had accumulated to
fund a local Dispute Resolution Program as approved by the
Board of Supervisors (Files 101-88-15 and 338-88-1). The
Dispute Resolution Program provides an alternative to
formal court proceedings for the settlement of disputes by
assembling panels of specialists to hear the disputants'
arguments and then to render a non-binding decision
regarding the dispute.
The proposed supplemental appropriation would fund a
continuation of the Dispute Resolution Program from October
1, 1992 through September 30, 1993, as follows:
Special Services Contract
Community Boards
(1,156 cases* @ $89/case) $102,875
California Community Dispute
Services (904 cases* @ $97/case) 87,723
California Lawyers for the Arts
(100 cases* @ $100/case) 10.000
Total Contract Services $200,598
* The number of cases to be provided was determined by
dividing the available funding by the per case cost.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
an
j f Memo to Finance Committee
' November 18, 1992
MQCD Administration
Senior Accountant (0.1 FTE) $4,453
Senior Community Development
Specialist (0.15 FTE) 6,812
Supervising Community Development
Specialist (0.05 FTE) 3.531
Subtotal Salaries $14,796
Fringe Benefits (at 20.375%) 3,015
Other Overhead Costs
(Share of clerical support, supplies,
telephone, rent, etc.) 2.215
Total - MOCD Administration $20.026
Program Total $220,624
Comments: 1. In Fiscal Year 1991-92, $214,324 was appropriated for the
Dispute Resolution Program.
2. The proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance
would extend the work programs for the existing contractors
for an additional year, from October 1, 1992 through
September 30, 1993. FY 1992-93 would be the fourth one-year
extension of the three contractors. Because funding for the
Dispute Resolution Program began on October 1, 1992, the
proposed ordinance should be amended to authorize the
MOCD to fund the Dispute Resolution Program retroactively.
3. A comparison of contractor cost per case between 1991-92
and 1992-93 for the three contracting agencies is as follows:
Cost Per Case
Increase/
1991-92 1992-93 Decrease
$92
$89
($3)
100
100
97
100
(3)
Contractor
Community Boards
California Community
Dispute Services
California Lawyers for the Arts
According to Mr. Bernhard Gunther of the MOCD,
Community Boards and California Community Dispute
Services would be receiving $3.00 less per hour in 1992-93
than in 1991-92 because funding available for their services
was reduced in 1992-93. Because Community Boards and
California Community Dispute Services receive the majority
of the funding, they were asked to reduce their budgets,
Community Boards and California Community Dispute
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Services decided to reduce their hourly rates rather than
reduce their caseloads.
Recommendation: Amend the proposed ordinance to authorize the MOCD to
fund the Dispute Resolution Program retroactively as
described in Comment 1. Approve the proposed ordinance as
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 7 - File 118-92-8
Department:
Item:
S££ AJUW>
'■ V. sfcis
■fkis /
Department of Public Health (DPH)
The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code by
adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413 to provide for a
program for enforcement of the California Medical Waste
Management Act and for registration, permitting,
inspections and administrative fees for medical waste
generators, treatment, and storage faculties.
Description: The proposed Medical Waste Generator Registration,
Permitting, Inspection and Fee Ordinance (Medical Waste
Ordinance) would regulate the storage, treatment,
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the
City. The proposed ordinance would enable the City's DPH to
regulate private and public medical waste generator agencies
located in the City and County of San Francisco.
The proposed ordinance contains a two page technical
definition of "medical waste." Generally, "medical waste" is
the discarded superfluous material from medical or
veterinary agencies that may contain infectious disease
organisms and, therefore, is a health threat to humans and
animals. Used hypodermic needles, blood vials, bandages,
and medical instruments are examples of medical waste.
The ordinance would regulate the management of medical
waste generated by various medical facilities including:
hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, doctor's offices, veterinary
offices, health care facilities, medical laboratories, and
dental offices. Agencies having facilities that produce
medical waste would be required to send to the DPH an
informational document which includes general business
information and information on the types and volumes of
medical waste produced, medical waste handling, storage,
treatment and disposal methods. The ordinance would
require that medical waste could only be transported by State
licensed hazardous waste haulers or certain medical waste
generator agencies with limited hauling exemptions issued
by the DPH.
Agencies having facilities that treat medical waste generated
on site would also be required to comply with specified
provisions in the ordinance. Medical waste treatment is any
method designed to destroy the biological hazard of medical
waste so as to eliminate its potential for causing disease. The
ordinance additionally would regulate the storage and
transfer of medical waste by requiring permits for the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
83
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
consolidation and use of common storage areas by a group of
generators.
The proposed ordinance contains specific regulations for
large and small quantity generator agencies and fees that
would be paid to the City (estimated revenues are detailed in
Comment number 4 below) as follows:
Large quantity generators agencies would be those agencies
having facilities that generate more than 200 pounds of
medical waste each month. (The proposed ordinance defines
the constituents of "medical waste.") The proposed ordinance
requires that large quantity generator agencies register with
the DPH annually. In addition, the generator agency would
be required to submit a Medical Waste Management Plan
that includes general business information as well as
information on the types and volumes of medical waste
generated, medical waste handling, storage, treatment and
disposal methods.
This group of generator agencies would be subject to
inspection on an annual basis by the City to ensure
compliance with State and City requirements. Mr. Scott
Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager for the
DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, estimates
that there are 177 agencies in San Francisco that would fit
the large quantity medical waste generator definition of the
proposed ordinance. This large quantity medical waste
generator group includes 83 agencies that currently have
State medical waste licensed facilities and 94 unlicensed
laboratories, veterinary offices, and medical offices. The
proposed ordinance would require the payment of annual
registration fees to the City by large quantity generators
agencies. These annual registration fees would range from
$255 to $1,445 according to the size and type of facility .
The proposed ordinance would require that Onsite Medical
Waste Treatment Facility Permits be obtained from the DPH
by large quantity generator agencies that want to treat and
dispose of their own medical wastes. Large quantity medical
waste generator agencies that want to treat their own
medical wastes would be required to use approved methods
which include the use of an autoclave, microwave, or
incinerator. In addition, a health care facility accepting
medical waste for treatment from small quantity generators
located within 400 yards could do so as an onsite treatment
facility.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
84
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Large quantity medical waste generator agencies wanting to
obtain an onsite treatment permit would be required to
submit an application containing business information,
treatment method, facility treatment capacity, waste
characterization, and estimated average monthly quantity of
waste to be treated at the facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates
that there are 21 agencies in the City that currently treat
medical waste onsite. The annual permit fee for an onsite
autoclave permit would be $255 and the annual permit fee for
all other State Approved treatment methods would be $340. In
addition, the Director of DPH would charge large quantity
medical waste generator agencies wanting to obtain an onsite
treatment permit a permit application fee equal to $85 for
each hour that DPH staff spends processing the permit
application.
Small Quantity Generators would be those agencies having
facilities that generate less than 200 pounds of medical waste
each month. The proposed ordinance would regulate two
subgroups of small quantity generator agencies. The two
groups would include small quantity generator agencies that
treat medical waste onsite and small quantity generators that
do not treat medical waste onsite.
Small quantity generators that treat medical waste onsite
would be required to register, file a medical waste
management plan, and submit applicable fees to the DPH on
a biennial basis. The approved treatment methods for onsite
medical waste treatment would include the use of steam
sterilization, incineration, and microwave methods. The
management plan would be required to describe the method
to be used to treat, transport, and dispose of the medical
waste. In addition, this group of generator agencies would be
subject to inspection by the City on a biennial basis to ensure
compliance with State and City requirements. Small quantity
generators that treat medical waste onsite would be required
to pay a registration fee of $255 every two years. Mr.
Nakamura estimates that there are 15 agencies in the City
that currently are small quantity generator agencies that
treat medical waste onsite.
Small quantity generators that do not treat medical waste
onsite are required by the ordinance to submit to the DPH an
informational document that describes how the medical
waste is handled, stored, transported, and disposed. In
addition, the ordinance requires that small quantity
generator agencies pay a one time non-registrant fee of $75.
Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 1,600 small quantity
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
85
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
generator agencies that would be required to submit the
informational document and one time fee.
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions would be required to
be obtained from the DPH which would enable small quantity
generator agencies to transport up to 20 pounds of medical
waste per week. The medical waste would be required to be
transported to a licensed medical waste treatment facility or
transfer station before consolidation or treatment and
disposal. Small quantity generator agencies applying for a
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemption would be required to
pay an annual fee of $85. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there
are 50 small quantity generator agencies that would request
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions. Agencies that haul 20
pounds of medical waste per week or more would continue to
be licensed and regulated by the State.
Common Storage Facility permits would be obtained from the
DPH for small quantity generator agencies that want to store
medical waste until it is picked up by a licensed hauler. The
permit could be issued to the group of small quantity
generator agencies, the property owner or management
firm, or medical waste hauler. The fee for a Common Storage
Facility permit would range from $213 to $425 depending on
the number of generator agencies served by the storage
facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 21 groups of
small quantity generators agencies that would use common
storage facilities.
The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of the
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and
could be subject to civil action. Violations of storage,
treatment, and disposal standards would vary from small
quantity and large quantity generators. Generators violating
these standards are subject to penalties ranging from $1,000
for the first offense to no more than $25,000 and/or three years
imprisonment for multiple offenses. The Director of the DPH
would also be authorized to take emergency actions when
necessary to protect the public health or welfare. The Director
of the DPH could also assess liens for costs and charges
incurred by the City for the abatement of any imminent
danger.
The proposed ordinance authorizes the City's Director of the
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
86
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and
would be subject to a civil action.
Violations of storage, treatment, and disposal standards
would vary for small quantity and large quantity medical
waste generator agencies. Medical waste generator agencies
violating these standards would be subject to penalties
ranging from $1,000 for the first offense to no more than
$25,000 and/or three years imprisonment for multiple
offenses. The Director of the DPH would also be authorized to
take emergency actions when necessary to protect the public
health or welfare. The Director of the DPH could also assess
liens for costs and charges incurred by the City for the
abatement of any imminent hazardous waste danger.
Comments: 1. The State currently regulates the storage, treatment,
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the City
and regulates private and public medical waste generator
agencies located in the City and County of San Francisco. The
DPH intends that the proposed ordinance would give the DPH
control over medical waste in the City to better assure that the
biological character of medical waste can either be isolated or
eliminated so as to prevent medical waste from causing
disease in humans or animals. The DPH believes that it can
do a better job to assure the safety of medical waste in the City
than can the State.
2. The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990
authorizes local agencies, such as the City, to establish a
medical waste regulatory program through the adoption of a
local medical waste management ordinance. According to
Mr. Scott Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager
for the DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, the
State Department of Health Services currently administers
the regulations contained in this act and, thereby, currently
is responsible for regulating private and public facilities
located in the City that create, produce, or generate medical
wastes. Mr. Nakamura states that the State Department of
Health Services is not adequately staffed to respond to the
City's local concerns.
3. According to Mr. Nakamura, "the benefits of local
implementation of the Medical Waste Management Program
include local control over the identification and correction of
problems related to the improper management of medical
waste, faster response to incidents of improperly managed
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
87
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
medical waste, the ability to address occupational safety and
health issues at medical facilities, increased communication
with medical waste generators, and coordination of local
policies which would minimize public health concerns. The
implementation of such a local program would also ensure
that registration and permit fees, which would otherwise be
submitted to the State, would stay in San Francisco."
4. The following table lists the one-time and annual fees that
would be charged for each type of agency and activity:
Number
Frequency
One Total
Number
of
of
Annual Time First Year
Tvpe of Aaencv
of Beds Aaencies
Pavment
E&S I
Revenue Revenue Revenue
Larae Quantity Generator
Hospital
1fo99
3
Annual
$ 510
$ 1,530
Hospital
100 to
199
200 to
250
251 plus
1
Annual
765
765
Hospital
1
Annual
1,020
1,020
Hospital
12
Annual
1,445
17,340
Skilled Nursing Facility
1to99
14
Annual
255
3,570
Skilled Nursing Facility
100 to
199
200 plus
4
Annual
340
1,360
Skilled Nursing Facility
1
Annual
425
425
Specialty Clinic
31
Annual
595
18,445
Acute Psychiatric Hospital
2
Annual
595
1,190
Intermediate Care Facility
1
Annual
595
595
Primary Care Clinic
12
Annual
595
7,140
Health Care Service Plan
5
Annual
595
2,975
Licensed Clinical Laboratory
38
Annual
255
9,690
Veterinary Offices
6
Annual
255
1,530
Medical Office*
46
Annual
255
11,730*
Small Quanfrtv Generator
On-Site Treatment
15
Biennial
255
1,913
Off-Site Treatment
1,600
One-time
75
$120,000
Haulers Limited Quantity Hauling
50
Annual
85
4,250
Exemption
Transfer Fee*
1
595*
Common Storaae Facility Permits
10 or less Agencies Served
6
Annual
213
1278
1 1 to 49 Agencies Served
10
Annual
340
3,400
50 or more Agencies Served
5
Annual
425
2,125
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
88
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Number
Frequency
One
Total
Number
of
of
Annual
Time
First Year
Type of Aqency
of Beds Agencies
Payment
Fee
Revenue Revenue
Revenue
On-Site Medical Waste Treatment
Facility
Autoclave Treatment
20
Annual
255
5,100
Other Treatment
1
Annual
340
340
Processing Fee (estimate 30
$35/Hr.
1,050
hours)
Totals
$99,356 !
5120,000
$219,356
* The proposed ordinance does not currently contain full provision for these fees.
The DPH is working with the City Attorney's Office to amend the proposed
ordinance to include mortuaries under the definition of medical offices and to
make provision for a transfer fee of $595 annually. The transfer fee would be
charged to haulers operating a transfer station at which medical wastes are
consolidated and transferred to another hauler's vehicle.
5. The California Medical Waste Management Act allows
counties to charge fees necessary to implement a medical
waste management program. A comparison of the proposed
fees for the City and County of San Francisco, the State of
California, and five other counties that have already
implemented medical waste management programs is
contained in the attached schedule.
Personnel Costs
6. Mr. Nakamura projects the annual costs for the
implementation of the proposed Medical Waste Program to be
$213,458. These implementation costs include personnel costs
of $135,432 and non-personnel costs of $78,026 as follows:
Classification
6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector
1446 Secretary II
Salary subtotal
Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 28%)
Total Personnel Costs
Operating Costs
Auto Mileage
Travel
Training
FTE
1.0
1Q
2.0
Annual
Salaries
$ 66,240
39.566
$105,806
29.626
$ 1,000
500
2,000
$135,432
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
89
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Contractual Services (Emergency
Response)
22,000
Other Current Services
2,000
Vehicle
5,000
Postage (3 mailings by registered mail)
17,500
Telephone
1,500
Materials and Supplies
6,000
Rental of Property
5,336
Data Processing Equipment
7,500
Reproduction
6,690
Medical Surveillance
1,000
Total Operating Costs
78.026
Total Cost
$213,458
7. The Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would
determine the inventory of businesses subject to the
ordinance, develop letters of notification, application packets,
fact sheets, standard operating procedures, inspection forms,
enforcement procedures, fee collection procedures, review
medical waste management plans and informational
documents, and conduct inspections of facilities subject to the
ordinance. In addition, this position would conduct business
workshops for the regulated community to assist them in
complying with the requirements of the ordinance. The
Senior Clerk Typist would provide clerical support for the
program.
8. The above annual costs for the implementation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program include the staffing and
operating costs associated with the processing of
applications, development of application forms, notifications
of permit requirements, review of applications and required
documentation, inspection of medical waste generators,
issuance of permits, development and distribution of fact
sheets, newsletters, and other educational materials.
9. The costs to implement the program would be entirely
funded by the projected revenue of $219,356 from registration
and permit fees. The proposed ordinance provides for an
inspection fee of $85 per hour or each portion thereof for
inspections and associated activities. Prior to the issuance of
permits, medical waste generator agencies may be inspected
by DPH staff to ensure compliance with State and City
requirements.
10. According to Mr. Nakamura, after the initial year of
operation of the proposed Medical Waste Program, various
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
90
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
initial costs of the Program could be eliminated or reduced.
For example, vehicle, postage and data processing expenses
could be reduced significantly. Mr. Nakamura estimates that
the annual ongoing cost of the proposed Medical Waste
Program would be approximately $30,000 less than the cost of
the initial year of operation or $183,458.
11. As stated above, the estimated revenues of $219,356 from
the fees contained in the proposed ordinance would support
the $213,458 estimated cost of the first year's operation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program. However, the estimated
revenues of $99,356 from the fees earned in the subsequent
years of the Program would not support the $183,458
estimated cost of the annual ongoing operation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program.
12. In order to hire the staff and expend funds to implement
the proposed Medical Waste Program, DPH must submit a
supplemental appropriation including the Controller's
certification of funds available from the proposed new fees to
appropriate the funds and an ordinance to amend the
Annual Salary Ordinance to create the new positions. In
addition, the collection of the proposed fees by the City would
require the hiring of staff to perform the requisite
inspections. The supplemental appropriation and the
ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance should be
companion legislation to this file since none could be
appropriately implemented without the others. Mr.
Nakamura has indicated to the Budget Analyst that he does
have a plan to fund the ongoing cost of the proposed Program
but has not finalized his plan.
Recommendation: Continue the consideration of this item pending 1) the
submission of a companion supplemental appropriation and
an ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance, 2) the
Department's clarification of second and subsequent years'
funding, and 3) the revision of the proposed ordinance
reflecting the specific intentions of the Department including
fees for mortuaries and medical waste hauler transfer fees.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance that would create an
additional new program responsibility for the City including
new fees and the need for additional staff and operational
costs is a policy mater for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
91
MEDICAL WASTE FEE COMPARISON
Attachm
snt
SAN
FRANCISCO
SANTA
CLARA
ORANGE
ALAMEDA
MARIN
CONTRA
COSTA
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS
ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS
1-99 BEDS
$510.00
$600.00
$722.00
$503.00
$600.00
$600.00
$600.00
100-199 BEDS
$765.00
$860.00
$938.00
$704.00
$860.00
$860.00
$860.00
200-250 BEDS
$1,020.00
$1,100.00
$1,239.00
$1,106.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
251 OR MORE BEDS
$1,445.00
$1,400.00
$1,557.00
$1,106.00
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
SPECIALTY CUNIC (SURGICAL,
DIALYSIS. ETC)
$595.00
$350.00
$368.00
$503.00
$350.00
$350.00
$350.00
ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPPTAL
$595.00
$200.00
$206.00
$503.00
$600.00
$200.00
$200.00
INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY
$595.00
$300.00
$336.00
$503.00
$300.00
$300.00
$300.00
PRIMARY CARE CUNIC
$595.00
$350.00
$368.00
$503.00
$350.00
$350.00
$350.00
CLINICAL LABORATORY
$255.00
$200.00
$213.00
$503.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
HEALTH CARE SERVICE PLAN
FACILITY
$595.00
$350.00
$368.00
$503.00
NA
$350.00
$350.00
VETERINARY CUNIC OR HOSPITAL
$255.00
$200.00
$368.00
$503.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE (200 OR
MORE POUNDS/MONTH)
$255.00
$200.00
$213.00
$503.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
HOME HEALTH SERVICE (NURSING,
INFUSION SERVICES, ETC)
$255.00
$200.00
$213.00
$503.00
NA
$200.00
$200.00
FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS.
INVESTIGATIONS, AND
CONSULTATIONS (HOURLY RATE)
$85.00
$0.00
NA
$67.00
$75.00
$80.00
NA
AUTOCLAVE TREATMENT PERMIT
$255.00
$300.00
$496.00
NA
$200.00
NA
NA
INCINERATOR TREATMENT PERMIT
$340.00
$300.00
$496.00
NA
$200.00
NA
NA
PERMIT APPUCATION REVIEW FEE
(HOURLY RATE)
$85.00
$0.00
NA
$67.00
$75.00
$80.00
NA
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
(LESS THAN 200 POUNDS/MONTH,
TRFAT ONSITE)
$128.00
$100.00
$496.00
$134.00
$100.00
$100.00
$50.00
NONREGISTRANT FEE (ONE TIME)
S75.00
$25.00
NA
$0.00
$75.00
$25.00
$0.00
LIMITED QUANTITY HAULING
EXEMPTION
S85.00
$0.00
NA
$101.00
$75.00
$50.00
$0.00
COMMON STORAGE FACILITY
PERMIT FEE
SERVING 2-10 GENERATORS
S213.00
$100.00
$105.00
$201.00 | S 150.00
$100.00
$100.00
SERVING 11^*9 GENERATORS
S340.00
$250.00
$263.00
$201.00
S250.00
$250.00
$250.00
SERVING 50 OR MORE GENERATORS
S425.00
S500.00
$561.00
$201.00
S500.00
$500.00
$500.00
INPATIENT FACILITIES
1-99 BEDS
S255.00
S275.00
$306.00
$503.00
$600 00
$275.00
$275.00
100-199 BEDS
S340 00
$350.00
$377.00 ! $704.00
S860 00
$350 00
$350.00
200 OR MORE BEDS
$425.00
$400 00
$446.00
$1,106.00
S 1.000.00
$400.00
$400.00
TRANSFER STATION
S595 00
SS00 00
$561 00
$603.00 J NA
$500 00
$500.00
92
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 8 -260-92-1
Item:
Description:
Resolution urging the transfer of two City remittance
banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging the
transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank
of America, urging that Bank of America not be used for the
City's proposed direct payroll deposit program, and urging
all officers and employees of the City and County, when
given the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial
institution for the City, to consider the use of financial
institutions other than the Bank of America.
The Bank of America has recently reinstated its corporate
donations to the Boy Scouts of America. In the past, the
Boy Scouts of America has announced a policy to deny
membership to homosexual persons.
The proposed resolution contains a finding that, although
the Bank of America has stated that the Boy Scouts of
America no longer discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation, a contrary public record exists to indicate that,
in fact, the Boy Scouts of America does discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation.
The proposed resolution states that the actions of the Bank
of America in providing financial support to the Boy Scouts
of America is inconsistent with the City's non-
discrimination policies and with its policy not to do business
with entities whose policies foster and encourage
discrimination against any of the residents of San
Francisco.
Therefore, the proposed resolution urges the following:
• That two City remittance banking accounts be
transferred from the Bank of America.
• That the City's revolving bank accounts be transferred
from the Bank of America.
• That the Bank of America not be used for the City's
proposed direct payroll deposit program.
• That all officers and employees of the City and County
consider the use of financial institutions other than the
Bank of America to conduct City business.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
93
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Comments:
According to the Clerk of the Board, the sponsor of the
proposed resolution has asked that consideration by the
Finance Committee be continued until December 2, 1992.
1. According to the City Treasurer, Ms. Mary Callanan, the
City's two remittance accounts cited in the proposed
resolution consist of two lock-box remittance accounts
which were recently transferred to the Bank of America
from another financial institution. Ms. Callanan states
that these two lock-box remittance accounts are among
three such accounts for which the City is currently
soliciting competitive bids from financial institutions.
A lock-box account involves the remittance of payments to
the City of San Francisco through a post office box, which is
attended by the financial institution to which the deposits
are made. This system eliminates the need for preliminary
processing by City employees and permits receipts to be
expeditiously deposited to the City's accounts.
2. The proposed resolution also urges the transfer of the
City's revolving bank accounts. According to the
Treasurer's report to the Board of Supervisors of September
18, 1992, City departments maintain approximately 85
separate checking accounts, of which 25 are with the Bank
of America. The report estimates that these 25 checking
accounts had a combined balance in September 1992 of
$615,100. The Treasurer's list of these 25 accounts is
attached to this report.
Ms. Callanan states that departments exercise their
discretion in selecting a bank for any revolving accounts
which are under their control. Ms. Callanan states that
revolving accounts which are held with the Bank of
America tend to be less costly to the departments, since the
fees for these accounts can be paid from the interest on the
City's large compensation account with the Bank of
America (see Comment 3).
3. According to the Treasurer's September 18, 1992 report,
the City maintains a compensating balance account with
the Bank of America which contains funds transferred to or
from many smaller accounts. The compensating balance
account has an average daily balance of $37.5 million,
according to the Treasurer's report, and the interest which
accrues to the City from this account is used to pay the cost
of numerous banking services, including the fees for the 25
revolving accounts with the Bank of America which are
held by individual City departments.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
94
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
4. The proposed resolution would also urge that the Bank
of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll
deposit program. The City Controller, Mr. Ed Harrington,
states that although the development of a direct payroll
deposit program has been considered, efforts will not be
made to implement such a program at least until the spring
or summer of 1993. Mr. Harrington states that the City
would select a bank to provide these services through a
competitive bidding procedure.
Recommendation; 1. Continue the proposed resolution to December 2, 1992 as
requested by the sponsor of the proposed resolution.
2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
95
Attachment
Fage 1 of 2
APPENDIX A-l
CITY DEPARTMENTS
BANK ACCOUNTS
BANK OF AMERICA
(CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS -
SERVICE CHARGES PAID* FOR BY TREASURER'S ANALYSIS PROGRAM)
DEPARTMENT
ADULT PROBATION
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
ASIAN ARTS MUSEUM
CITY ATTORNEY
COMMISSION ON THE AGING
CORONER
PUBLIC LIBRARY
HETCH HETCHY
WATER DEPARTMENT
Damage Claim
Consumer Adjustment
Consumer Deposit
Regular
8.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL
Revolving
BANK
LOCATION
AVERAGE OR
LATEST BALANCE
1 Powell Street
$ 650.
S.F.I. A.
10,000.
800 Irving
1,000.
1 Powell Street
65,000.
1525 Market
300.
345 Montgomery
1525 Market
19,900.
500.
1 Powell Street
5,000.
1 Powell Street
7,500.
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1,200.
25,000.
-0-
58,000.
2850 - 24th Street
38,200,
96
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX A-2
CITY DEPARTMENTS
BANK ACCOUNTS
BANK OF AMERICA
, (CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL
DEPARTMENTS - SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY DEPARTMENTS)
DEPARTMENT
AGRICULTURE
Weights 6 Measures
Farmers Market
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY
& BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICA-
TIONS
LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL
Patients Trust Fund
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Contingency Fund A
Contingency Fund B
Revolving
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER
MUNICIPAL RAILWAY
S.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL
Patient Account
BANK
LOCATION
2 090 Jerrold
2090 Jerrold
2090 Jerrold
288 West Portal
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1 Market Plaza
345 Montgomery
4141 Geary
2850 - 24th Street
AVERAGE OR
LATEST BALANCE
$ 400.
200.
2,000,
32,000,
3,000,
217,000,
7,000,
69,000,
250,
17,000,
35,000,
97
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Items 9 and 10 - Files 97-92-61 and 172-92-15
Note: These items were continued from the November 9, 1992 Recessed Finance
Committee Meeting.
Departments:
Items:
Location:
Purpose of
Purchase:
Seller:
Developer:
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following
provisions:
(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of
an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including
certain indemnities and the release of the seller contained
therein);
(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase
for sale of real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain
indemnities contained therein); (c) a trust agreement
(including certain indemnities contained therein); and (d) an
official statement;
(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting
bids in connection with the City and County of San Francisco
Certificates of Participation (1660 Mission Street Project)
Series 1993;
(4) Authorizing the Chief Adniini strati ve Officer to fix rents
to be charged and to submit budgets for approval;
(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of
the Certificates of Participation; and
(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section
101.1, all in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the
1660 Mission Street property.
File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit,
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street.
1660 Mission Street
To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire
Department permit processes at a single location.
Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to
oversee the asset
The Derringer Group
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
98
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
No. of Sq. Ft:
Total Cost
Source of Funds:
Description:
97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet
$5,700,000
($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11
regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant
improvements)
Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt
service for Certificates of Participation
Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits;
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building
Inspection.
The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core
and shell condition in mid- 1991 and is a six-story steel frame
office building with a one level subterranean garage.
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which
will be used for parking.
The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation.
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The
investors would receive a return on their investment through
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation.
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of
Participation.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
99
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following
categories of fees:
(a) Plan Review Fees;
(b) Building Code Fees;
(c) Public Works fees;
(d) Planning Code fees;
(e) Administrative Code fees.
All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as
follows:
(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through
June 30, 1995;
(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
1995 through June 30, 2000; and
(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
2000 through June 30, 2005.
Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire.
The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following
dollar costs:
(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects,
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second
period; and $9.82 in the third period;
(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000.
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the
third period;
(3) . 1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects,
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the
second period; and $430.90 in the third period.
Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees
are consistent with the fees noted above.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
100
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr.
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six
floors, which would be used as follows:
First Floor:
to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public
parking; and public information booths where seven
employees would provide information regarding the status of
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code
information, etc.
Second Floor:
to include the permit center and the construction services
center.
Third and Fourth Floor:
to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and
code enforcement sections, including all inspectors.
Fifth Floor:
to include the administrative offices for the various applicable
departments.
Sixth Floor:
to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.)
2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now
occupying the four different locations noted in the description
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr.
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms,
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
101
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place.
3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop."
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California,
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However,
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency
that would be achieved in San Francisco. Mr. Litchfield
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most
permit applicants who have been in contact with the
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time.
However, there is no documentation as to whether such
applicants, who have been in contact with the various
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for
large construction projects.
4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new
building would accommodate any growth in permit requests
in future years, Mr. Litchfield reports.
5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit
application process would be restructured. Instead of
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with
permit processors to review applications in person. This new
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports.
6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping
employees who provide information to the public. Mr.
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
102
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit
processing functions are located on a number of different
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has
not been provided with any documentation regarding
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services
Center.
7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister,
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall,
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises.
8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate
Harrison of the Superior Court advises.
9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase,
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports.
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of
the State Code.
10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
103
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account.
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000.
11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million.
The estimated $3.5 million in tenant improvements would be
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million,
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which
would be repaid from the fee surcharges.
12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The
cost of such improvements would vary based on the
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr.
DeLucchi.
13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price,
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and
related financing institutions invested approximately $17
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
104
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports.
15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed
building purchase.
16. According to Mr. Weiner, the CAO anticipates
introducing an Amendment of the Whole for the proposed
ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the CAO to
negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to an
underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless
the market changes significantly over the next few months.
Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports
documenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15)
(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
105
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 11 -File 79-92-3
The proposed resolution would approve the 1993 Community Development
Program of up to $21,708,373 and authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City and
County of San Francisco, to apply for, receive and expend the City's 1993
Community Development Block Grant (CDBGX entitlement from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The proposed resolution would
also transfer and expend (a) reprogrammed funds, included in the amount of
$21,708,373, from prior year Community Development Programs and (b)
additional program income of $16,043.00 generated by the San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency. The proposed resolution would also approve expenditure
schedules for recipient departments and agencies including indirect costs, would
determine that no environmental evaluation is required and would authorize the
receipt of any funds in excess of $21,708,373 to be placed in a Contingency Fund.
Please refer to the Budget Analyst's separate report of November 16, 1992 on
the Mayor's proposed 1993 Community Development Program.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
106
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 12 - File 38-92-25
Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of
November 4, 1992.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Description:
Comments:
Recreation and Park Department
Resolution accepting a cash gift of $5,480 from Wells
Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park
Department Summer Activities Brochure.
$5,480
The Recreation and Park Department reports that Wells
Fargo Bank has donated a $5,480 cash gift to fund the
publication of the Department's 1992 summer activities
brochure. The Recreation and Park Department advises
that the $5,480 donation, which has already been accepted
and expended by the Department, helped to fund the
publication of approximately 70,000 brochures, which
were distributed to San Francisco schools, libraries and
community agencies. The total cost of these brochures
was $13,882 with the balance of $8,402 funded by General
Fund monies ($5,402), Pier 39 ($2,000) and McKesson
Foundation ($1,000).
According to Ms. Diane Palacio, of the Recreation and
Park Department, the $5,480 charitable donation by Wells
Fargo Bank represented a good will effort on the part of
the bank.
1. As noted above, the Department has already accepted
and expended the $5,480. Therefore, the proposed
legislation should be amended to authorize the
Department to accept the gift retroactively. Ms. Palacio
advises that the Department did not previously request
authorization from the Board of Supervisors for the
acceptance of this gift due to an unintentional
administrative oversight.
2. The Department is not requesting authorization to
accept the $2,000 from Pier 39 and the $1,000 from
McKesson Foundation because under Administrative
Code Section 10.116, the Board of Supervisors authorizes
City departments to accept cash gifts which do not exceed
$5,000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
107
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the
Department to accept the gift retroactively, and approve
the resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
108
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Ttem 13 - File 64-92-25
Departments:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lesson
No. of Sq. Ft and
Cos t per Month:
Annual Cost:
% Increase
Over 1991-92:
Real Estate
Police Department
Port
Resolution authorizing exercise of an option to extend the
existing lease of Pier 70 from the Port of San Francisco for
use by the Police Department.
Pier 70 (Assessor's Block 4052, Lot 1)
Storage of automobiles confiscated by the Pick Your Part Auto
Wrecking Company (the Police Department contracts with
this firm for vehicle towing services).
San Francisco Port
$40,354 per month for approximately 336,282 sq. ft. =
approximately $0.12 per sq. ft. per month.
$484,248
0.5 percent
Janitor Services
Provided by Lesson Yes
Term of Lease:
July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997 (Five Years)
Right of Renewal: No options remain on this lease.
Source of Funds: Under the Police Department's contract with Pick Your Part
Auto Wrecking Company, the company is responsible for
paying the rent on this property. There is no cost to the City.
Comment: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the proposed
monthly rental amount of $40,354 represents the fair market
rental of the space to be leased.
2. As noted above, the lease extension has an effective date of
July 1, 1992. Therefore the legislation should be amended to
authorize the Police Department to exercise the option to
extend the lease retroactively.
Recommendation: Amend the resolution to authorize the Police Department to
exercise the option to extend the lease retroactively.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
109
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 14 -File 64-92-26
Departments:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No.ofSq.Ftand
Cost per Month:
Annual Cost:
Term of Lease:
Source of Funds:
Comments:
Real Estate
Public Health
Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 25
Taylor Street, Rooms 612 and 614, for the Department of
Public Health
25 Taylor Street, Rooms 612 and 614
Offices for the Tuberculosis Control staff engaged in
performing tuberculosis and HP/ screening and prevention
services to high risk Tenderloin residents
Shorenstein Company
$300 per month, including gas, electricity, water, scavenger
and janitorial services for approximately 460 sq. ft. =
approximately $0.65 per sq. ft. per month
$3,600
36 months from date of approval
Centers for Disease Control
1. The proposed office space would be used for TB screening
at the Ambassador Hotel and for persons out of drug
treatment programs in the Tenderloin District. Currently,
Tenderloin residents must travel to San Francisco General
Hospital for TB testing. This outreach program to the
Tenderloin is fully supported by the Centers for Disease
Control.
2. According to Mr. Carlos Balladeros of the Department of
Public Health, funds for this proposed lease were included in
a Centers for Disease Control grant of $268,923 for
Tuberculosis Testing in the Tenderloin (File 146-92-4.2).
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
110
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 15 -File 100-92-1.4
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source
of Funds:
Description:
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families
(MOCYF)
Release of reserved funds
$3,275,126
1992-93 Children's Fund Budget
Section 6.415 was added to the San Francisco Charter to effect
the Children's Amendment that was approved by the electorate
as Proposition J in November, 1991. The Children's
Amendment established a new Special Fund, the San
Francisco Children's Fund, to be expended exclusively to
provide services for children above and beyond services which
have been previously funded in the City's budget.
For fiscal year 1992-93, the Children's Fund is $5.7 million in
accordance with the requirements of the Children's
Amendment, including $3,275,126 for contractual services. In
approving the 1992-93 budget, the $3,275,126 was reserved
pending selection of the contractors by the MOCYF.
MOCYF has now completed the Request for Proposal (RFP)
contractor selection process and requests release of the
reserved $3,275,126 in order to begin contractual services on
January 1, 1993. The RFP process that began in July, 1992
required applicant contractors to submit 1) a Statement of
Intent which provided general details on the applicants and
their proposed programs (due July 17, 1992) and 2) a Final
Proposal (due July 24, 1992). The MOCYF received 170
Statement of Intents and 124 Final Proposals. An Ad-Hoc
Advisory Panel on Children's Services, consisting of 36 citizens
appointed by the Mayor, reviewed the 124 Final Proposals that
requested total funding of $12,763,362 for full year contracts, or
approximately four times the available 1992-93 funding for
contractual services of $3,275,126.
In order to be able to contract for the maximum level of
services for the $3,275,126 in available funding for 1992-93, the
MOCYF will contract for nine months from January 1 through
September 30, 1993 using the $3,275,126 for 1992-93 Children's
Fund instead of contracting for a full 12 months with the same
amount of funding, as would normally be done.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
111
•Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
The Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel initially selected 32 proposals for
funding. Those applicants that were not selected were allowed
to appeal the Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel's decision to a Panel
consisting of the Chairs (or their representatives) of the five
Committees (see Comment No. 2). 43 applicant appeals were
heard by the Panel over a three-day period. Eight of the
appealing applicants were selected as contractors for 1992-93
for a total of 40 contractors (32 initially selected plus 8 selected
on appeal). The MOCYF reviewed the Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel's
recommendations and concurred with the selection of the 40
contractors.
The contractors that were selected for 1992-93 are listed by
service and program categories as follows:
CHILDCARE SERVICE
Vendor Voucher Program
Children's Council of San Francisco
Wu Yee Children's Services
Subtotal
Provider Subsidies Program
Audrey L. Smith Child Development Center, Inc.
Economic Opportunity Council
Holy Family Day Care
San Francisco Jewish Community Center
Subtotal
Respite Care Program
CAHEED, Inc.
Children's Council of San Francisco
Wu Yee Children's Services
Subtotal
Licensing Program
Children's Council of San Francisco
Wu Yee Children's Services
Subtotal
Total - Childcare Service
$227,382
227.382
$120,000
75,000
62,100
75.000
$25,000
25,000
2 5,000
$18,750
18. 75Q
$454,764
332,100
75,000
37,500
$899364
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
112
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE
Family Resource Center Program
Family Service Agency of San Francisco
Homeless Children Advocacy Program
Hamilton Family Center
Mental Health Service Childcare Program
Children's Council of San Francisco
Daycare Consultants
Learning Services of Northern California
Subtotal
Child Abuse Prevention Program
Wu Yee Children's Services
Total - Health and Social Service
JOB READINESS. TRAINING AND PLACEMENT
Job Readiness/General Education Diploma Program
Bridges - From School To Work
Central City Hospitality House
Community Educational Services
San Francisco Conservation Corps
Youth Guidance Center Improvement Committee
Subtotal
Mayor's Youth Employment & Education Program
Japanese Community Youth Council
Early Exposure Program
Visitation Valley Community Center
Total - Job Readiness, Training and Placement
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
Multi-service Teen Centers Program
Operation Contact, Inc.
RAP, Inc.
Subtotal
Community Based Tutorials Program
Camp Fire Boys & Girls
Mission Reading Clinic
San Francisco Educational Services, Inc.
Subtotal
$150,000
56,250
$37,500
85,457
24,333
147,290
29.817
$383357
$81,539
64,500
225,000
55,012
43,132
$469,183
300,000
35.510
$804,693
$133,127
133.127
$266,254
$44,248
49,749
169.661
263,658
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
113
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Alternatives to Detention Program
Center on Juvenile And Criminal Justice
Total - Delinquency Prevention and Education
SPECIAL NEEDS
Childcare
Asian Perinatal Advocates/Volunteers of SFGH
Easter Seal Society of San Francisco
Northern California Service League
Subtotal
Health & Social Services
Children's Center for Movement Therapy
Teenage Pregnancy & Parenting Project
Subtotal
Job Readiness, Training & Placement
California Lawyers for the Arts
Girls Leadership Project of San Francisco
Horizons Unlimited of San Francisco
Subtotal
Delinquency Prevention & Education
Lavender Youth Recreation Information Center
Mission Youth Soccer League
Subtotal
Total - Special Needs Services
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MOCYF Contract Administration Services
Unallocated
PROPOSED RELEASE OF RESERVE
Comments: 1. In October 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution to urge the Mayor to utilize the 1992-93 Children's
Services Plan as the foundation for the development of the 1993-
94 Children's Services Plan and in order to maintain
continuity in the provision of contractual services, to continue
contracting with the same contractors, at the same service
levels and at approximately the same amount (estimated at
$3,114,638) in the succeeding nine month period from October
1, 1993 through June 30, 1994 from the estimated $13.6 million
to be allocated to the Children's Fund for 1993-94.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
114
130,000
$659,912
$37,500
7,829
13,500
$58^29
$15,150
41,708
56,858
$8,610
41,250
93,750
143,610
$89,146
17,755
106.901
$3ffi,198
$3,113^24
99,860
61.742
$3^75,126
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Recommendation:
2. The Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel consists of 36 citizens
appointed by the Mayor. The Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel is
broken down into five Committees, one for each of the five
service categories. The Committees range in size from five to
nine members. The Panel that reviewed appeals of the Ad-
Hoc Advisory Panel's funding recommendations consisted of
the Chairs (or a representative) of each of the five
Committees.
3. MOCYF indicates that the $61,742 identified as
Unallocated in the proposed release of reserve should be
designated for future expansion of the MOCYF contract
administration. Therefore, the $61,742 should continue to be
reserved pending submission of cost and budget details of
MOYCF contract administration growth.
Release the reserve on $3,213,384 ($3,275,126 requested release
less $61,742 to continue to be reserved for future growth of
MOYCF contract administration) and continue the reserve
on the $61,742 for future growth of MOYCF contract
administration.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
115
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Item 16 -File 101-92-9
Department: Arts Commission
Item: Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance
Amount: $5,100
Source of Funds: Street Artist Program
Description: The Art Commission approved Resolution No. 1102-92—433,
dated November 2, 1992, authorizing an amount not to exceed
$5,100 from the Street Artist Program to be used to fund the
Police Department for enforcing the Street Artist Ordinance
in the downtown area during the month of December, 1992.
This request is to effect said application of funds, which was
not included in the Art Commission's FY 1992-93 annual
budget.
According to the Art Commission, a special enforcement
program is needed during the holiday season in the
downtown area because on the expected influx of unlicensed
(illegal) vendors, which, if allowed, would have the following
undesirable effects: (1) obstruction of sidewalks; (2) sale of
goods that have not been examined by the Art Commission or
the Police Department, and are thus unauthorized; and (3)
penalize licensed street artists and store merchants who are
required to pay taxes and who incur other expenses.
Sections 10B.1. through 10B.5. of the Administrative Code
provide for special law enforcement. In general, any person,
corporation, organization, etc., may request that the Police
Department provide personnel for law enforcement purposes.
If such request is approved by the Police Department,
payment for the services is made on a cost basis, plus a 22.5
percent administrative overhead charge, which is deposited
to the General Fund unappropriated balance. The cost basis
for compensating Police Department personnel for said
services is at time and one-half, and the minimum
assignment period is four hours per employee.
As reported by Mr. Howard Lazar of the Art Commission, the
proposed ordinance would provide funding for a total of 123
hours of Police Department services, including six hours of
supervision/scheduling, 15 hours of travel (one hour for each
day of patrol), and 102 hours of patrol, scheduled as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
116
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Number
of Patrol
Date
DavofWeek
Timeofdav
Pours
December
9
Wednesday
Noon-
- 5 p.m.
5
December
10
Thursday
Noon-
- 5 p.m.
5
December
11
Friday
Noon-
- 5 p.m.
5
December
12
Saturday
Noon-
-5 p.m.
5
December
16
Wednesday
Noon-
- 5 p.m.
5
December
17
Thursday
Noon-
- 5 p.m.
5
December
18
Friday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
39
Saturday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
20
Sunday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
21
Monday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
22
Tuesday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
23
Wednesday
Noon -
- 8 p.m.
8
December
24
Thursday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
26
Saturday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
December
27
Sunday
Noon-
- 8 p.m.
8
Total Patrol Hours
102
The costs for the enforcement services would be for salaries
and related benefits, on a time and one-half basis, as shown
below. The adhiinistrative charge of 22.5 percent is included
in the hourly rates.
82.5 day hours @ $40.67/hour $3,355.28
34.5 night hours @ $42.37/hour 1,461.78
6 hours for supervision/scheduling
@$47.14/hour 282.84
Total $5,099.90
Mr. John Madden, Chief Assistant Controller, reports that
the Street Artist Fund received revenues in the amount of
approximately $121,000 in FY 1991-92. Mr. Madden reports
that the Street Artist Fund currently has a surplus balance of
$5,112, which would be the revenue source for the requested
enforcement program.
The Street Artist Ordinance, which was created by initiative
in November of 1975, provides in Section 7 that "All or part of
funds derived from the fees paid by street artists and
craftsmen may be assigned by the Board of Supervisors to the
Art Commission for use in paying members of the Advisory
Committee as set forth in Section 2 above and to the San
Francisco Police Department for enforcement of this
Proposition." The proposed ordinance complies with this
provision of the Street Artist Ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
117
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Comments: 1. Mr. Lazar reports that a full time Art Commission
employee previously had responsibility for enforcing the
Street Artist Ordinance, but that the position was deleted by
the Mayor from the budget during FY 1991-92 due to a lack of
sufficient funding. Mr. Lazar reports that the full-time
employee was not a peace officer.
2. As previously cited, expenditures for the proposed Police
Department services would include 15 hours of travel time.
Police Department fiscal policy provides that "one half hour
travel time shall be paid going to and coming from a filming
location or special assignment location."
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
//77,/W
Harvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
118
F
.25
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
//
Item 7 - File 118-92-8
Department:
Item:
Public Library, "Documents ODcpt.
JVFmQ Qe,rry%ptfi
REVISED
Department of Public Health (DPH)
The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code by
adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413 to provide for a
program for enforcement of the California Medical Waste
Management Act and for registration, permitting,
inspections and administrative fees for medical waste
generators, treatment, and storage facilities.
Description: The proposed Medical Waste Generator Registration,
Permitting, Inspection and Fee Ordinance (Medical Waste
Ordinance) would regulate the storage, treatment,
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the
City. The proposed ordinance would enable the City's DPH to
regulate private and public medical waste generator agencies
located in the City and County of San Francisco.
The proposed ordinance contains a two page technical
definition of "medical waste." Generally, "medical waste" is
the discarded superfluous material from medical or
veterinary agencies that may contain infectious disease
organisms and, therefore, is a health threat to humans and
animals. Used hypodermic needles, blood vials, bandages,
and medical instruments are examples of medical waste.
The ordinance would regulate the management of medical
waste generated by various medical facilities including:
hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, doctor's offices, veterinary
offices, health care facilities, medical laboratories, and
dental offices. Agencies having facilities that produce
medical waste would be required to send to the DPH an
informational document which includes general business
information and information on the types and volumes of
medical waste produced, medical waste handling, storage,
treatment and disposal methods. The ordinance would
require that medical waste could only be transported by State
licensed hazardous waste haulers or certain medical waste
generator agencies with limited hauling exemptions issued
by the DPH.
Agencies having facilities that treat medical waste generated
on site would also be required to comply with specified
provisions in the ordinance. Medical waste treatment is any
method designed to destroy the biological hazard of medical
waste so as to eliminate its potential for causing disease. The
ordinance additionally would regulate the storage and
. Ncf DOCLIMFMTS DEPT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
83
NOV 1 9 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
transfer of medical waste by requiring permits for the
consolidation and use of common storage areas by a group of
generators.
The proposed ordinance contains specific regulations for
large and small quantity generator agencies and fees that
would be paid to the City (estimated revenues are detailed in
Comment number 4 below) as follows:
Large quantity generators agencies would be those agencies
having facilities that generate more than 200 pounds of
medical waste each month. (The proposed ordinance defines
the constituents of "medical waste.") The proposed ordinance
requires that large quantity generator agencies register with
the DPH annually. In addition, the generator agency would
be required to submit a Medical Waste Management Plan
that includes general business information as well as
information on the types and volumes of medical waste
generated, medical waste handling, storage, treatment and
disposal methods.
This group of generator agencies would be subject to
inspection on an annual basis by the City to ensure
compliance with State and City requirements. Mr. Scott
Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager for the
DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, estimates
that there are 177 agencies in San Francisco that would fit
the large quantity medical waste generator definition of the
proposed ordinance. This large quantity medical waste
generator group includes 83 agencies that currently have
State medical waste licensed facilities and 94 licensed
laboratories, veterinary offices, and medical offices. The
proposed ordinance would require the payment of annual
registration fees to the City by large quantity generators
agencies. These annual registration fees would range from
$255 to $1,445 according to the size and type of facility.
The proposed ordinance would require that Onsite Medical
Waste Treatment Facility Permits be obtained from the DPH
by large quantity generator agencies that want to treat and
dispose of their own medical wastes. Large quantity medical
waste generator agencies that want to treat their own
medical wastes would be required to use approved methods
which include the use of an autoclave, microwave, or
incinerator. In addition, a health care facility accepting
medical waste for treatment from small quantity generators
located within 400 yards could do so as an onsite treatment
facility.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
84
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Large quantity medical waste generator agencies wanting to
obtain an onsite treatment permit would be required to
submit an application containing business information,
treatment method, facility treatment capacity, waste
characterization, and estimated average monthly quantity of
waste to be treated at the facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates
that there are 21 agencies in the City that currently treat
medical waste onsite. The annual permit fee for an onsite
autoclave permit would be $255 and the annual permit fee for
all other State Approved treatment methods would be $340. In
addition, the Director of DPH would charge large quantity
medical waste generator agencies wanting to obtain an onsite
treatment permit a permit application fee equal to $85 for
each hour that DPH staff spends processing the permit
application.
Small Quantity Generators would be those agencies having
faculties that generate less than 200 pounds of medical waste
each month. The proposed ordinance would regulate two
subgroups of small quantity generator agencies. The two
groups would include small quantity generator agencies that
treat medical waste onsite and small quantity generators that
do not treat medical waste onsite.
Small quantity generators that treat medical waste onsite
would be required to register, file a medical waste
management plan, and submit applicable fees to the DPH on
a biennial basis. The approved treatment methods for onsite
medical waste treatment would include the use of steam
sterilization, incineration, and microwave methods. The
management plan would be required to describe the method
to be used to treat, transport, and dispose of the medical
waste. In addition, this group of generator agencies would be
subject to inspection by the City on a biennial basis to ensure
compliance with State and City requirements. Small quantity
generators that treat medical waste onsite would be required
to pay a registration fee of $255 every two years. Mr.
Nakamura estimates that there are 15 agencies in the City
that currently are small quantity generator agencies that
treat medical waste onsite.
Small quantity generators that do not treat medical waste
onsite are required by the ordinance to submit to the DPH an
informational document that describes how the medical
waste is handled, stored, transported, and disposed. In
addition, the ordinance requires that small quantity
generator agencies pay a one time non-registrant fee of $75.
Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 1,600 small quantity
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
85
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
generator agencies that would be required to submit the
informational document and one time fee.
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions would be required to
be obtained from the DPH which would enable small quantity
generator agencies to transport up to 20 pounds of medical
waste per week. The medical waste would be required to be
transported to a licensed medical waste treatment facility or
transfer station before consolidation or treatment and
disposal. Small quantity generator agencies applying for a
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemption would be required to
pay an annual fee of $85. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there
are 50 small quantity generator agencies that would request
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions. Agencies that haul 20
pounds of medical waste per week or more would continue to
be licensed and regulated by the State.
Common Storage Facility permits would be obtained from the
DPH for small quantity generator agencies that want to store
medical waste until it is picked up by a licensed hauler. The
permit could be issued to the group of small quantity
generator agencies, the property owner or management
firm, or medical waste hauler. The fee for a Common Storage
Facility permit would range from $213 to $425 depending on
the number of generator agencies served by the storage
facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 21 groups of
small quantity generators agencies that would use common
storage facilities.
The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of the
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and
could be subject to civil action. Violations of storage,
treatment, and disposal standards would vary from small
quantity and large quantity generators. Generators violating
these standards are subject to penalties ranging from $1,000
for the first offense to no more than $25,000 and/or three years
imprisonment for multiple offenses. The Director of the DPH
would also be authorized to take emergency actions when
necessary to protect the public health or welfare. The Director
of the DPH could also assess liens for costs and charges
incurred by the City for the abatement of any imminent
danger.
The proposed ordinance authorizes the City's Director of the
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
86
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and
would be subject to a civil action.
Violations of storage, treatment, and disposal standards
would vary for small quantity and large quantity medical
waste generator agencies. Medical waste generator agencies
violating these standards would be subject to penalties
ranging from $1,000 for the first offense to no more than
$25,000 and/or three years imprisonment for multiple
offenses. The Director of the DPH would also be authorized to
take emergency actions when necessary to protect the public
health or welfare. The Director of the DPH could also assess
liens for costs and charges incurred by the City for the
abatement of any imminent hazardous waste danger.
Comments: 1. The State currently regulates the storage, treatment,
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the City
and regulates private and public medical waste generator
agencies located in the City and County of San Francisco. The
DPH intends that the proposed ordinance would give the DPH
control over medical waste in the City to better assure that the
biological character of medical waste can either be isolated or
eliminated so as to prevent medical waste from causing
disease in humans or animals. The DPH believes that it can
do a better job to assure the safety of medical waste in the City
than can the State.
2. The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990
authorizes local agencies, such as the City, to establish a
medical waste regulatory program through the adoption of a
local medical waste management ordinance. According to
Mr. Scott Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager
for the DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, the
State Department of Health Services currently administers
the regulations contained in this act and, thereby, currently
is responsible for regulating private and public facilities
located in the City that create, produce, or generate medical
wastes. Mr. Nakamura states that the State Department of
Health Services is not adequately staffed to respond to the
City's local concerns.
3. According to Mr. Nakamura, "the benefits of local
implementation of the Medical Waste Management Program
include local control over the identification and correction of
problems related to the improper management of medical
waste, faster response to incidents of improperly managed
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
87
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
medical waste, the ability to address occupational safety and
health issues at medical facilities, increased communication
with medical waste generators, and coordination of local
policies which would minimize public health concerns. The
implementation of such a local program would also ensure
that registration and permit fees, which would otherwise be
submitted to the State, would stay in San Francisco."
4. The following table lists the one-time and annual fees that
would be charged for each type of agency and activity:
Number
Frequency
One Total
Number
of
of
Annual Time First Year
TvDe of Aaencv
of Beds Aaencies
Pavment
Ess. i
Revenue Revenue Revenue
Larae Quantity Generator
Hospital
1to99
3
Annual
$ 510
$ 1,530
Hospital
100 to
199
200 to
250
251 plus
1
Annual
765
765
Hospital
1
Annual
1,020
1,020
Hospital
12
Annual
1,445
17,340
Skilled Nursing Facility
1to99
14
Annual
255
3,570
Skilled Nursing Facility
100 to
199
200 plus
4
Annual
340
1,360
Skilled Nursing Facility
1
Annual
425
425
Specialty Clinic
31
Annual
595
18,445
Acute Psychiatric Hospital
2
Annual
595
1,190
Intermediate Care Facility
1
Annual
595
595
Primary Care Clinic
12
Annual
595
7,140
Health Care Service Plan
5
Annual
595
2,975
Licensed Clinical Laboratory
38
Annual
255
9,690
Veterinary Offices
6
Annual
255
1,530
Medical Office*
46
Annual
255
11,730*
Small Quantity Generator
On-Site Treatment
15
Biennial
255
1,913
Off-Site Treatment
1,600
One-time
75
$120,000
Haulers Limited Quantity Hauling
50
Annual
85
4,250
Exemption
Transfer Fee*
1
595*
Common Storaae Facility Permits
1 or less Agencies Served
6
Annual
213
1,278
1 1 to 49 Agencies Served
10
Annual
340
3,400
50 or more Agencies Served
5
Annual
425
2,125
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Number
Number
of
Frequency
of
Annual
One
Time
Total
First Year
Type of Aqency
On-Site Medical Waste Treatment
Facility
Autoclave Treatment
of Beds Agencies
20
Pavment
Annual
Fee
255
Revenue
5,100
Revenue
Revenue
Other Treatment
1
Annual
340
340
Processing Fee (estimate 30
hours)
$85/Hr.
2,550
Totals
$100,856
$120,000 $220,856
* The proposed ordinance does not currently contain full provision for these fees.
The DPH is working with the City Attorney's Office to amend the proposed
ordinance to include mortuaries under the definition of medical offices and to
make provision for a transfer fee of $595 annually. The transfer fee would be
charged to haulers operating a transfer station at which medical wastes are
consolidated and transferred to another hauler's vehicle.
5. The California Medical Waste Management Act allows
counties to charge fees necessary to implement a medical
waste management program. A comparison of the proposed
fees for the City and County of San Francisco, the State of
California, and five other counties that have already
implemented medical waste management programs is
contained in the attached schedule.
6. Mr. Nakamura projects the annual costs for the
implementation of the proposed Medical Waste Program to be
$213,458. These implementation costs include personnel costs
of $135,432 and non-personnel costs of $78,026 as follows:
Personnel Costs
Annual
Classification FTE
Salaries
6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector 1.0
$ 66,240
1446 Secretary II 1.0
39.566
Salary subtotal 2.0
$105,806
Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 28%)
29.626
Total Personnel Costs
$135,432
ting Costs
Auto Mileage
$ 1,000
Travel
500
Training
2,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
89
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Contractual Services (Emergency
Response)
$22,000
Other Current Services
2,000
Vehicle
5,000
Postage (3 mailings by registered
mail)
17,500
Telephone
1,500
Materials and Supplies
6,000
Rental of Property
5^36
Data Processing Equipment
7,500
Reproduction
6,690
Medical Surveillance
1.000
Total Operating Costs
78.026
Total Cost
$213,458
7. The Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would
determine the inventory of businesses subject to the
ordinance, develop letters of notification, application packets,
fact sheets, standard operating procedures, inspection forms,
enforcement procedures, fee collection procedures, review
medical waste management plans and informational
documents, and conduct inspections of facilities subject to the
ordinance. In addition, this position would conduct business
workshops for the regulated community to assist them in
complying with the requirements of the ordinance. The
Senior Clerk Typist would provide clerical support for the
program.
8. The above annual costs for the implementation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program include the staffing and
operating costs associated with the processing of
applications, development of application forms, notifications
of permit requirements, review of applications and required
documentation, inspection of medical waste generators,
issuance of permits, development and distribution of fact
sheets, newsletters, and other educational materials.
9. The costs to implement the program would be entirely
funded by the projected revenue of $220,856 from registration
and permit fees. The proposed ordinance provides for an
inspection fee of $85 per hour or each portion thereof for
inspections and associated activities. Prior to the issuance of
permits, medical waste generator agencies may be inspected
by DPH staff to ensure compliance with State and City
requirements.
10. According to Mr. Nakamura, after the initial year of
operation of the proposed Medical Waste Program, various
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
90
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Recommendation:
initial costs of the Program could be eliminated or reduced.
For example, vehicle, postage and data processing expenses
could be reduced significantly. Mr. Nakamura estimates that
the annual ongoing cost of the proposed Medical Waste
Program would be approximately $30,000 less than the cost of
the initial year of operation or $183,458.
11. As stated above, the estimated revenues of $220,856 from
the fees contained in the proposed ordinance would support
the $213,458 estimated cost of the first year's operation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program. However, the estimated
revenues of $100,856 from the fees earned in the subsequent
years of the Program would not support the $183,458
estimated cost of the annual ongoing operation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program.
12. In order to hire the staff and expend funds to implement
the proposed Medical Waste Program, DPH must submit a
supplemental appropriation including the Controller's
certification of funds available from the proposed new fees to
appropriate the funds and an ordinance to amend the
Annual Salary Ordinance to create the new positions. In
addition, the collection of the proposed fees by the City would
require the hiring of staff to perform the requisite
inspections. The supplemental appropriation and the
ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance should be
companion legislation to this file since none could be
appropriately implemented without the others. Mr.
Nakamura has indicated to the Budget Analyst that he does
have a plan to fund the ongoing cost of the proposed Program
but has not finalized his plan.
Continue the consideration of this item pending 1) the
submission of a companion supplemental appropriation and
an ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance, 2) the
Department's clarification of second and subsequent years'
funding, and 3) the revision of the proposed ordinance
reflecting the specific intentions of the Department including
fees for mortuaries and medical waste hauler transfer fees.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance that would create an
additional new program responsibility for the City including
new fees and the need for additional staff and operational
costs is a policy mater for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
91
MEDICAL WASTE FEE COMPARISON
Attachm
ent
SAN
FRANCISCO
SANTA
CLARA
ORANGE
ALAMEDA
MARIN
CONTRA
COSTA
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS
ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS
1-99 BEDS
$510.00
$600.00
$722.00
$503.00
$600.00
$600.00
$600.00
100-199 BEDS
$765.00
$860.00
$938.00
$704.00
$860.00
$860.00
$860.00
200-250 BEDS
$1,020.00
$1,100.00
$1,239.00
$1,106.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
251 OR MORE BEDS
$1,445.00
$1,400.00
$1,557.00
$1,106.00
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
SPECIALTY CLINIC (SURGICAL,
DIALYSIS. ETC)
$595.00
$350.00
$368.00
$503.00
$350.00
$350.00
$350.00
ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPrTAL
$595.00
$200.00
$206.00
$503.00
$600.00
$200.00
$200.00
INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY
$595.00
$300.00
$336.00
$503.00
$300.00
$300.00
$300.00
PRIMARY CARE CLINIC
$595.00
$350.00
$368.00
$503.00
$350.00
$350.00
$350.00
CLINICAL LABORATORY
$255.00
$200.00
$213.00
$503.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
HEALTH CARE SERVICE PLAN
FACILITY
$595.00
$350.00
$368.00
$503.00
NA
$350.00
$350.00
VETERINARY CUNIC OR HOSPITAL
$255.00
$200.00
$368.00
$503.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE (200 OR
MORE POUNDS/MONTH)
$255.00
$200.00
$213.00
$503.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
HOME HEALTH SERVICE (NURSING,
INFUSION SERVICES, ETC)
$255.00
$200.00
$213.0*-
^ a> o
-2 a> <n
§ & ~
> co co
< -D -D
■o c c
c o o
J E E
^tr x
: ,_ "- 1 CD
I £ o c
I C O CO
L CD -C O
IsJ
a> c o
: 5 z> 5
CO
£ 8
^2<
CD ' — ' -O
i ^-8
<D CD S
to -Jr. r-
O 3 Cf) t
T" « CD O
„ Q «? .= CD
CCCCCOCOO-^
CO(OtOcfl(0"L_orO(n
C oSCD
• CD
»-: .-: co jo
MtOhh
0) CD CD CD ^>
<J C C C <»
^r . CO CD CD CO ®
a> o _ £ ^ O
— co . •—
m co «
s c -°
O 3 CO
c
6
CO
c
£
P
CO
c
3
E
cS
E
^c
m
O
CD
o o
2-2-
O £ 5
-~^I
CD co
CO
E E
E E
m >
to <3
-c o o o "C co
"OOO CD =
E£
o < ■
■fa i= c c
W W ® co
1>?.^E
co co c m
E
^ ™ o "
wm § g
co g m m
5 c -= c
O to ™ o
CO 3 CD ^
co m o 5
CD 2 c c c
-> S o o o
O 3 3 3 O
c c c c c
^" ST U)
CL > CD
O O <
I X CD CO
c S "c
a *- w w CD «) CO
2 2 ™ 325Pu! E
CO CO
> >
t O y o v co
9 J2 ^ S ^ .« u.
W O O O O <J rji
to c c c c c "'
- c CO CO CO CO co g
® it it iir
2 c c c
g W W W w
CD
a a " r ®
>>5$?5§5
000
.2 < < <
-"000
5 2 2 5
>- > >
- CL
< •
3 -£
O CO >
Q CD CO
CO
S1^
S I 2 o
2 CO CD o
B O "C ^
00 3 » -o
„ T) I S
2 o
s
to
^5
(A 7
c E
CD O
"5 Q
Q m o
CD ^^
til
E £ X
o 3 ..
C c Q
— ° c
ill
O g O
' U. X
w o o "* — "- J -
CD ■= ^- ^ C t* J*
09 CC 3 CO Q
co c 3 .• £
CO o
X g
■c £ 5 £ "is
> CD CO CD CD
E" to" m C C C C
co g»5 S E
gen
>- CO -i
< -I >
"5= CD c c c
a e
< < <
c _<o _<o
< < <
3 CO
< CD
u
CO CO
cd m
c c c
3 3 3
XXX
? ? 5
I'll
co co co
cm co co co tf
r^ r^ r-— r-— r —
>«-.5
o E
S»E
2^
la
oocM«ooocoi-ooco<or'^oo«>f~**ooooooooo>oo<oo
«/» 0)CM O Q> h» IDt-OOOSNV"
rflO om
O O O CO O
oooootooo
_5§
O i- o
CM <M CM ■* CM
2 I
«
at
£
b
c
01)
§
Q
CM
O)
O)
>
O
C
'■5
c
3
LL
o"oooooot-oooocooo<oooooooooooc»ooooooooo
O Of<- »- CM O CO OOOO
o o
IO o"
i- O CM O
I o °
2 2
oo o
CO
O)
Q
O
3
m
O
u
o> O
Q.
3
m
*■
s
O
CL
-.OCMCOOOOpi-OO
S o> cm o o> r»
*» •t- O O OU)
OO" ^ o" CO -r-^
»- to « in o
<o o o o co r»»
i-ooor-iM^oooo
't1-_0_0_0_<00>CMO_0_0_0_
* U) w" o" n o" s o" in o" uf
OOOOOOOOOIOOCOOOOOOOOCOOO
o o o <o o
°. f"! °. "P. °.
o* (o in i-" o"
58
o i- o
mCMincOCOtOinCMCOCM CM CM CM ^ CM
i- O CM O
s-s
>• 01
B U «
°> £, ff
^ O) m
o "' JS
S 55
COi-COOOinCM?
**OIOOt-_ONO
ooco»^'cMo"t^'o"r-"o"
CM^FcocMincococom
-.oocooo^wino^cooooor^ooincMOooooooocoocooooococoQ
SoOCMOOi-COCMOini-OOOOCMOOOCOWOOtOOCMOOCOOTfOOO ^wo
V* *~i *r\ m r\ e~* er\ rf\ m r** c^ ^* tr* r*t t~t **■ rr* n cs ** ~- *^ i~s rrt t~\ t~* t\i r^ tr\ rr\ r~* tr\ r^ /~i /—> /rini
^«— ' ^^ 1<I \-* V— ' ■» VV *-M ' — '
o_ in o q q oo <o_ eo q
o" <o" t-" o" o" o" «5
n o ID n n <o n
CMOini-OOOOCMOOO)COinOO«OOCMOOCOOTfOOO
«o_CM^«qo_o_Ttc»o_o_Tfr^ts i ©_cq©_©_cMO_oqcqc3«o_o_o_o_
N w V ep o o" o" o> o" ^-" o" o" CO T-* n" o" o" o" K in S t-' o" m" to" o" in
<ococo^<ocoin^nsN^O)cococMocoScoo)ioooi"tior)
CM i-
00 CO o o o o
<o" r-" co" o" o" o"
CM tO CM CM CO (O
co >-
o o
|§ CO <D
O O O
CO
CO
sz
J=
O O
_o
o
"o
o
.c
.c
CO
ra
O O
Tj-intor^mmm 0,- ' ,-c>JCVJ co ^ ^fr to to
fflSS»SScS°2°°2 2 ° °. ° °
><:p
o E
■S>E
2^
ii
"Sac 1
s I'-s
o g § i
-9.0"-
o o o o o o o
IQ O O -f o o
^r o o ■* o o
dinon to" oo*
CO CD O) ^ CM IO
ONO
CM <o*
to 03
o o o to coocoooooouooooooooooooocmooooooo
ooootp cm coocoooN ^ oo ooo oon m oo
■'o ^ to oimsi-om co
8"fc" |
CO 1- T- -r- ■* O
CM CM *- CM *-
co o
OOO
O O CO
f~
o to
CM O
CM IO
o to to
CO CO to
NOS
CO CM 03
CO
O CM
tO T-
of^ooo'oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo'
tocoooooo too
c» o
o to o
s
18 Iff
o o o o o o o
O O O O CD O
IO CO to CM 03 O
CM IO CM IO 03 CO
OOOOCOWOOOTOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOCMOOOOOOO
O O
o uo
o" CM
CM CM t- CM t-
CO o CO o o h»
o> to h» i- o to
CO
o o
00 o
ooo
ooo
o o ■*
O O 00
i- 00 CO ■* o <o
Ot-t-t-^O
CO
CM
CM O
CM IO
O IO IO
CO co to
NOS
CO CM 03
si
m
COOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOCOOTOOWOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOCMOOOOOOO
■S 5"
OOO
ooo
O CO
O CM
03 O CM
•* o to
CO O CO o o 1^
O) to h- *- o to
o to 00
CM CM IO
CM 03
IO 03
fcSS
I- 00 00 ^ O 03
CO 1- T- T- *t O
CM CM i- CM t-
o o
00 o
OOO
OOO
o o -<t
o o 00
CM O
CM IO
o to to
CO CO uo
(MON
CO CM 03
O O i
O
•"toooocooouooocoooor^-oo c
-locMcp inffl'-ososoiDi-oioooNouiiooi'-ooinifli-inoNoinooooNioN
"t- t- .-CJCJt-N^i- t- CM
0> 01
e n
»- CM CM CO 't'tinUllDMDtOO
— c
01 O
c -S
< c
~ •
o E
2>E
2^
ooooooooo
«J O O CO o
o o co o
oooooooooooo
in o oo o co o o
TflO PP. P. *1 P. P.
|C co" co" O O S IO O
CO ■* COCO IflSN •»-
o o o o
•^ 1- -r- CO
oooooooo
« 8 S §
00)000000000000000001000
widoooo o in o or*.
CO O O CO O^ CO oco
t0mm
o
o
o
in
o
o
r~-
CJ
CJ
£i
to
£i •at
oooooooo
o o o o o o o
o o_ p_ O O O O
in o" in in eg co" in
•- C\J T- * -r- *— *&
sfi
o> o 0.2,
*z j- m
oooooooooooooooooooo
o o co o o in o oo
o o co o o ■* co P. P
co" oo" o in in r» co" co" o
ii-m ■<* coco'* coco
o co o
O t- O
o o o o
o in o o
o ■* p_ r-.
cJ co" in c\J
O) O) r* co
o> "2
oiooooooooooooooooomoo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
o
o
co"
o"
in
o"
O)
CJ
r^
r^
<&
CJ
co
oooooooo
oooooooo ~
32
01 £
cog
°. °. n . '". w . f". *. °. *. *". °. n . °. *. °. °. ". *. ®. °.
o" co" r~ co" cj" cj in" co r-T ^ o>" o>" o co" o" o" en" ■*" co" m"
Oi-aioNNiMcococooooiionnoocc^oin
co
o
o
_
in
in
o
in
o
o_
C--
in
en
co"
cj"
Tt
CO
CD
CJ
CJ
CJ
*
oooooooo ._
OJE
E
o u- CO
CO o c CO
° § o I 8
o ^2 Q. a, <d o
s»ts
m -~ P ?
CD U- 'F
.9. - «
CD
CO
c -c?W
2 co oa
. E 2 c
» o UJ §
> co :t=
8*s
co co co co
o o o o
c c c c
CO CO CO CO
e c c ez
2-o
en co
O CO
cog 1 -!
-5 O- 2 io
-S I a. -i
£ H £ S
8 m -c t>
C CO O T3
** O Q. O
*J 3 3 3
co co co co
co .2 .2
CO c c
5-1 £
!? "5 H
tr
"See
— O. 2 2
g&O
_c p.
c £ o o o
m co
CO i
He
O CD
If
CD CD
o >
E it
= — CD CD
CO O
£ 5 £•£•£
co ? •= 7= CO
BO § |«
X v, E E 2
-^ Q. O O co
50 >< >>"55
"° "2 2 ra >
§ ^ 5>^> 2
hhi-
2
E
2 03
c —
3 CO
> o
I?
Q CO
fcD^
con
pi
o o2
ri ri <B =?:
hh>>?5>-
O <9
Q ^
yj %
c — §
« 5 Q
52 »a
8 8. CD-
<o S- c c
< o c 2
- O c E
£ — <° o-
i £E -§
Q.E"?
© o o a
3; °> c ,.
Q co o c
oQUJg
illl
-- o c "te 2
j <o CO 2 J3
- -9 ■ ,5
z 00
> ™
X 6
CD
i 8
2 id
2 O £
S £ »r
- 3 2
■ c 5
CO 5 O
E 1.
-2 m
Ix
3 I 2
05 :
« § o
5E?
co E E
-c o S
t°-i
o 2 —
£ S
.1 i
■Q O) <D
•oca
c re rr
o 2
"8»o
2 2 I
si §
eg 3 o
CD U UJ
SS429.E {?8
060 £ £
~ re re
LL -3 _l
CD "
re .<2
CO — i
E S
2 ^
g> CD
2 g>
O CO
CD
C T3
II
3 CD
*~ <0
o £
S5
.9 °o
Is
|8
E 2
o ^
£ T3
si
i§ 8
E £
M «>
>> >»
2 <o
!<
o> en
f =
CQ CO
2 CD
2 5 5
•t ■* * ■*
in
2^
'Is
c "2
© E
SE
m
_ CD »- O O
Swf fc in
°on cm a
o tj
Is
oooooooooo
o o_ in o_ o o
w * co" in o" o>
f- 0) CO CO CD "tf
CO o o o
8
o o
o o
o" o"
CD
o o
</>
m m
O fv. ,- O CO o o
O CO O O ^ U} o
0^ CB i^ O ^t CO o
B in co o" o" o" o"
f CO CM O *- CM o
««• *- 1- 1- »-
s « S ?
S« r TJ
« 8 § §
oooooooooo
«/» oooo ooo
oooo o o o_
o" n o" in o* o* in"
S.C~£2. — Si.*""
o o o o o o
r-~
o o
o
CD
o
o
CD
o
o
co"
o"
o"
i
in
o
m
O CM If) O O) O O
IOO — CM O
CM If) O CO
If)" *"" *-" t»"
■a
en O
S 5
o> O
°- ^
■" £
w CD
Q.
OOOOOOOOOO
cr> o
If)* g CO* o"
CO ~ CO If)
_ o o o
g o o o
o
g o o o
o
^ o" o" o"
gj 18 10 io
o
<^
5>
o
o
oooooooooo
<y» oooo ooo
hi
-I
O) "°
oooo ooo
cc
o"no"»' O O If)
Q
■* *- CM CO CM CM ■*
2
t- 3
<
a
CO
t-
co
o o o o o o
>> Cfl
co o a
01 5" =,
T- O) ffi
< tr
(OOOOOOOOOO
CM O
CO o
r-.* o'
■>* o
o o o *»■ If) o
, o o o CO ■* o
iqqqBoq
„ in o o" m" <-" of
oiicoiflinflioit
-*-<P
O CO CM O CO O O
O CO •* O r- o o
0_ CD ^ 0_ S ffl O
O* CO O) O* S N O
CM CO CO O CO CM O
«» t- i- CM i-
CM
o if) r~ o o» o o
•»* co t o co o o
Sn voooo
V N Ol" O" CO O* O
CO If) o O CO CO o
CMCO N O S N O
•* q co q q cm_ o
oT r-" en o" co* m" o"
« a Aon ~f o
«/» t- ■r- CO i-
CM*
en a
ECC
co co c
"<o ex co
< E •"
£ • oc 8 c £
<0 CO
111
1 E E
co <D 111 n
3 £ _ CD
m r -5 o
o -9 W £
h «- •
~= c o co
2 >, CO ■
|Iw 8 §
co W -c « "
CD •_ CD O
% CD
CD 2MJ_
c«c
E £ 2
m c c ~=
co o M u
C O V CO
CD ^. CO CD
u. o> o 3
co j- 5 5
S £t
7«5
E
CO •"-
Q °-
= Q
c ~-~
3 Ol
E S
II
So
c 42 c
3 E °
« E°
C o "D
o « ™
s o si ti
O ct> o
5 ™ *
■« S E £
Q X S
o> ""
11
O CO
J §■«- g
"5 Q x> oi
8 8<|
^ a o U ® -
« ra c 2
- *_ CO o
§."* fe s
n" c -° 3
Icoco ^
E T3
co co
S" ^
o co
i- co
2 ic
if ffi 00
£ -o "~
^8 !•
«£ g.
- E a>
2 co 9
CD w CO
CO Q) —
5 9 *°
2 a* 5
5 _ c
- J § .
o C £ en
» ; o2
CO • -
ST2 „
Q. (0 i: CO
5 N CO CD
CO •= CO
ID T £
c i E "O
??3 I
.9 cd < £
§ ? O £
1 1 Qs
£ o 5 x.
gS og
1 8 o 1
en
^ CO
<o
ill*
O co cq -o
CD -Q T> "J
^ c £ °>
O CD CD c
C E E I
- 1 SI
8 8 g
CO
„ ♦. •; CO
■ s S2. ><
-^- -sT*
W « 5 C
^ ^ »r CD
CO CD CO cj)
0)0)01-0
TO X> ~3 3
3 3 3 m
mm" 3 ,,
CD CD J> ^
M IOO o
IO CO ID N
f if) CD CO CD CO O)
r^ r» r~- r^ r^ co co
ELL
< g
~ £ o
m
2^
II
p oc
<o »- II
II
ffi = 3
<
o o o o o o
I I
ooooooooooooooo
</>ooooooo
ssr-inwinoi
inoio--Ni-i-
o o
o o o
<D* O* O*
5 • 2 2
s g *~ -a
« 8 § §
-9.0"-
ooooooooooooo
o ooo ooooooo
o o in o ooooooo
in* co" c\f in n in o" oi" w" d
y- i- i- »- CM t- CO •■- CO
</» -^ — -^
ooooooooooooo
ooo ooo oooo
. o_ o_ o_ o o_ o o_ o_ o_ o
<o" oo" o* o" o" ob" <o" o" o* o"
cm cm m won o)o kin
m cm i- cm
CM_ 10, wo n
cr>
O
1
en
O
S
n
O)
O
Q.
TJ
2
O
3
m
>» 0>
CO O ffl
oi Jo-
^ O) ffi
o o
in m"
oooooooooo
o oooooo o
t- co i- cm cm t- in
oooooooooo
CM y- y-
ooooooooo
o o o o o c~. o
00 o o o o_ •**• o_
d> in in o" o* •<* ©"
cm co i- oo m cm w
oooooooooooooo
ooooooo
r~ r~ *- m cm m o>
n a o i- pi t- i-
o o o o o
o o o o o
o" o" <o" ©* ©"
CO O O) "
$?
-? in
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO o
oooooooooooo o
o" o" o* o" o* o" ©" ©" co" o" o" o" o*
TtO'^OCMlO^-OdOOlO h-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooo ooooo
O o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o o_
in ^' n o" o" o" o" o" o" to* o" o"
f» r-. f- m cm m o> «o o o> m in
inoinT-w^r- ooiot r-
"*' |C »-* Cm"
'Jo
<0 y- II
Si
"5
E ■
2 M
0)75
o c
££
"2 5
-" c £■£■
5 3 c c
o « t fc
i p. e E
ra .c o o
2 O
c —
HI c
ra — o
_l £ Sg,
Sag
o .c 2
S" S
E _
o x
en "?
c| T.
e <H _ !=
S &| gL
oio « a
E S
o > .2
JC >
O CD
go
■fc o»
3 c
O ■
*I
i.i
E 2
Si
"""J?™
m » "O
CO* §
-£"§£
c o„
ra
W i TO
O $ 5
c 5 -
fc > o
a> c _
.c ro £
r a> 3
ooo
Z O CO
as o a>
■*" £ °
SJSo
o m E
L ■ a
o< g
"Dec
I TO-e
W I- 3
o «
E ra
?°- 5
E S
O 3
*?: w
I 3
E
a
oS
o
o
m
Q
O
S a> ■
2 o c
E S -S a>
"^-'S-^ o
_ o 0) 5-
P > = °
c o> 0. c
— qc — a>
E p5"
OI U *> D
O C T. 3
? ra o CD
u. j: ra
-• c 5-fi
> ra o o
X CO w >
|i s
C. c c
_ _0 v>
lIS
*?5o.
i _ a)
I lg(
i S *? «
i Oi a
ill!
: § o o
i i co to
<n c Q.
i5S-l
JE = M TO
~ ro 3 c
. § 51
» E E w
■n i- to c
30J£»
s-s I g
S « - x
^ m o oo
CO «'
3><-§ m _icococ ^o)
O <o o
wScoss
t3
£ ro c c c
c c c c
QQ 5jc«J2iS 2
E 2
T3 O
< I-
o> O)
P 1
« °-
g> a,
O <»
s.
II
■ a>
X CO
to a>
2 *>
2 c
S 2
|5
5 I
e 2
ra £
o>2
o a.
&■§
* i
£ 0>
II
o o
o o
E .5
E£
8^?
II
TO O
J£ o
ra a>
E *:
^^ c/>
«) >.
>-ra
ra c
CMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM CM t\l (M CM
12
o.if
BOARD of SUPERVISORS
NOVEMBER 19, 1992
City Hall
San Francisco 94102
554-5184
DOCU*"'
NOV 24 IS!
SAN FR/
PUBLIC L._.
NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
^FINANCE COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Finance Committee for Wednesday, November
25, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.
The next regular meeting of the Finance Committee will
be held on Wednesday, December 2, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., in
the Legislative Chamber, Second Floor, City Hall.
/- \ fj r — "
C]mL/¥*
JCHN L. TAYLOR
/Clerk of/the Board
POSTED: NOVEMBER 19, 1992
DOCUMFMTS pcn>T
N0V24 1992
SAN FRANCIS
PUBLIC LIBRARY
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROOM 235, CITY HALL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
IMPORTANT
HEARING NOTICE
Govt Documents
Public Library
Civic Center
S.F. CA 94102
D 0133
CALENDAR -^ T^K*"
MEETING OF
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DOCUMENTS DEPT ;
DEC 4 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARV
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1992 - 2:00 P.M.
LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER
2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL
PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HALLINAN - ITEMS 9-16, and 18-21
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
1. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
(Cont'd from 11/18/92)
ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to December 16, 1992, meeting.
2. File 27-92-11 . [Airport Advance] Resolution authorizing agreement by and between
the City, the Airports Commission and various airlines regarding an advance
payment to the City of $25 million from the Airports' Capital Improvement Fund.
(Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Recommended.
3. File 170-92-13 . [Airport Revenue Bonds] Resolution approving the issuance of up to
$2,400,000,000 aggregate principal amount of San Francisco International Airport
Second Series Revenue Bonds in up to fifteen separate issues for the purpose of
financing Airport Master Plan Projects, and approving maximum interest rates with
respect thereto; and adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted,
amended.
Recommended as
File 101-92-11 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $2,400,000,000, San
Francisco International Airport, for Capital Improvement Project, for fiscal year
1992-93. RO #92099 (Controller)
ACTION: Recommended.
5. File 101-92-13 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $12,020,375, Water
Department, for various capital improvement projects, rescinding $4,700,000. RO
#92103 (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Recommended.
6. File 100-92-11 . [Water Department Funds] Motion transferring to the General Fund
excess Water Department monies, in the amount of $4,700,000, pursuant to Charter
Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992. RO #92104 (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Recommended.
7. File 101-92-14 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $10,716,761, Hetch
Hetchy Water and Power, for various capital improvement projects. RO #92102
(Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Recommended.
8. File 100-92-10 . [Hetch Hetchy Department Funds] Motion transferring to the
General Fund excess Hetch Hetchy Department monies, in the amount of $2,500,000,
pursuant to Charter Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992. RO #92105 (Supervisor
Gonzalez)
ACTION: Recommended.
9. File 101-92-12 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $335,134,
Superior Court, for professional and other contractual services, services of other
departments - Real Estate, Public Health, City Planning, courthouse construction.
RO #92101 (Supervisor Migden)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $304,667, Superior Court, for professional and other
contractual services, services of other departments - Real Estate, Public
Health, City Planning, courthouse construction; placing $214,267 on
reserve."
10. File 68-92-12 . [Federal Grant - Substance Abuse Prevention] Resolution amending
Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91, authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept and
expend funds in the amount of $721,186, as made available through the Federal
Office for Substance Abuse Prevention for a project entitled "The Community
Partnership Program", by authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend
funds in the amount of $1,273,997. (Supervisor Migden)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New
title: "Authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend funds in
the amount of $1,273,997, as made available through the Federal Office
for Substance Abuse Prevention for Calendar Year 1993, for a project
entitled "The Community Partnership Program", which includes indirect
costs of $35,161; ratifying actions previously taken; and placing $196,000
on reserve."
11. File 172-92-15 . [Project Lease] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution
and delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including certain
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of
agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, a facilities lease (including certain
indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including certain indemnities
contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the distribution of an
official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County of San Francisco
certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 1993; authorizing
the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to submit budgets
for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents reasonably necessary
for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of participation; and adopting
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in connection with the
acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property; companion measure to
File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer)
(Cont'd from 11/18/92)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted. Recommended as
amended.
12. File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street;
companion measure to File 172-92-15. (Chief Administrative Officer)
(Cont'd from 11/18/92)
ACTION: Recommended.
13. File 170-92-12 . [Reimbursement from Bond Proceeds] Resolution declaring official
intent of the City and County of San Francisco to reimburse funds from proceeds of
taxable or tax-exempt indebtedness for certain expenditures incurred in connection
with the following projects; (1) providing loans for the seismic strengthening of
unreinforced masonry buildings devoted to affordable housing and to market-rate
residential, commercial and institutional uses; and (2) the construction and
reconstruction of Fire Department facilities. (Chief Administrative Officer)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New
title: "Declaring official intent of the City and County of San Francisco
to reimburse funds from proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt indebtedness
for certain expenditures incurred in connection with the construction and
reconstruction of Fire Department facilities."
14. File 68-92-11 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City
and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend funds in the amount of
$1,062,500 in year one and $750,000 in each subsequent year through September 29,
1997, which include indirect costs in the amount of $21,250 year one, or two percent
of the total grant award here after, made available through the Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development for a project entitled
"San Francisco Gang Prevention Project; and agreeing to provide in-kind match in
the amount of $459,207; providing for ratification of action previously taken.
(Mayor)
ACTION: Recommended.
15. File 172-92-16 . [Airport - Public Pay Telephone Agreement] Resolution approving
the "Public Pay Telephone Agreement" between Pacific Bell and the City and County
of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airports Commission. (Airports
Commission)
ACTION: Recommended.
16. File 173-92-4 . [Approval of Hold Harmless Agreement] Resolution authorizing the
Port of San Francisco to agree to hold the State of California harmless from all
claims arising from State Lands Commission processing of a dredging permit. (Port
Commission)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended.
17. File 51-92-3. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty.
(Various)
July, August, September 1992
ACTION: Continued to December 16, 1992, meeting.
18. File 82-92-9 . [Property Acquisition - Noise Easements] Resolution authorizing the
acquisition of one hundred additional noise easements in the City of South San
Francisco in their Phase VTI Program - $250,000. (Real Estate Department)
ACTION: Recommended.
19. File 65-92-14 . [Lease of Property] Ordinance authorizing lease of Water
Department land, approximately .71 acres of pipeline right-of-way in Santa Clara
County to the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose. (Public Utilities Commission)
ACTION: Recommended.
20. File 106-92-2 . [Salary and Wage Division] Resolution authorizing Civil Service
Commission to expend funds to conduct the 1993-94 Salary Survey. (Civil Service
Commission).
(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Recommended.
21. File 106-92-3 . [Salary and Wage Division] Resolution fixing highest generally
prevailing wage rates, private employment on public contracts. (Civil Service
Commission).
(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Recommended.
SPECIAL ORDER - 3:00 P.M.
22. File 260-92-1 . [Removal of Funds from Bank of America] Resolution urging the
transfer of two city remittance banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging
the transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging
that Bank of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll deposit
program, and urging all officers and employees of the City and County, when given
the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial institution for the City, to
consider the use of financial institutions other than the Bank of America.
(Supervisor Achtenberg)
(Cont'd from 11/18/92)
ACTION: Recommended to Board for consideration on December 14, 1992.
JM&BCic Libraru, "Documents (De,vt.
CITY AND COUNTY Mffijl ° F S A N ^IflSSAfiC O (^£777/ %0 tfl
// nor.* impntS DEPT.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEC0 21992
BUDGET ANALYST ^ FRANC lSCO
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
November 30, 1992
///
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst r)«<c>M*<i»etefti,«i
SUBJECT: December 2, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
Item 1 - File 100-92-9
Note: This item was continued at the November 18, 1992, Finance Committee
meeting.
This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for
the City and County of San Francisco.
On October 27, 1992, a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office,
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the
following:
Airport Advance - ($25 million): Item No. 2 of this Finance Committee report
is a resolution authorizing an agreement between the City, the Airports
Commission, and various airlines regarding advance payment to the City of $25
million from the Airport's Capital Improvement Fund.
PUC Equity Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million): These PUC funds
include equity transfers from the Water Department ($4.7 million) including $2.2
million from the proposed sale of the Water Department property to the Olympic
Club and Hetch Hetchy ($2.5 million). Item Nos. 6 and 8 of this Finance Committee
report, respectively, are motions for the Board of Supervisors to transfer to the
General Fund excess Water Department and Hetch Hetchy Department monies in
the total amount of $7.2 million ($4.7 million plus $2.5 million), pursuant to the
provisions of Charter Section 6.407(e).
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's
General Fund. However, the City Attorney has raised some questions regarding the
legality of this transfer of funds, and is currently reviewing this issue. The City
Attorney is anticipated to issue an opinion on this matter, in the immediate future.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 2 -File 27-92-11
Department: Airports Commission
Item: Resolution authorizing an agreement by and between the City,
the Airports Commission and various airlines regarding an
advance payment to the City of $25 million from the Airport's
Capital Improvement Fund.
Amount: $25 million
Description: To offset the City's 1992-93 budget shortfall, it was proposed by
the Mayor's Office that the Airport advance $25 million of
surplus funds from the Airport's Capital Improvement Fund to
the City's General Fund. The proposed resolution would
authorize this agreement by and between the City, the Airports
Commission and the 19 airlines operating at San Francisco
International Airport regarding this $25 million advance
payment to the City. According to the Airport, the 19 airlines
have approved the proposed $25 million advance.
The proposed $25 million advance would be repaid to the Airport
from future, annual payments of Airport concession revenues to
the General Fund. Currently, the Airport is required to pay 15
percent of its gross receipts received from concession revenues to
the City's General Fund. This payment is estimated at $15
million for Fiscal Year 1992-93. The annual payment from the
Airport to the City of 15 percent of concession revenues is in
accordance with the Airport's 1981 Lease and Use Agreement
(settlement agreement).
The proposed $25 million advance was agreed to by the 19
airlines which are signatory to the 1981 settlement agreement.
The previously noted payments from Airport concession
revenues are paid to the City on a quarterly basis. The $25
million advanced to the City this year would be deducted from
future year concession revenue payments from the Airport to the
City's General Fund, and would be entirely repaid after seven
years, according to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport. Ms.
Gittens advises that the impact of repayment is expected to
diminish as concession revenues increase.
Comments: 1. The City would be required to pay interest on the $25 million
advance. The rate of this interest would be equal to either the
interest rate of the Treasurer's pooled cash investment fund, or
of the Airport bonds that are issued, whichever is higher.
Establishing the interest rate in this way would guarantee that
the $25 million loan would earn as much for the Airport as
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
would be earned on tbe funds if the Airport had not made the
advance.
2. The $25 million would be transferred to the City on June 30,
1993. The repayment of the advance by the City to the Airport
would be made on a quarterly basis beginning September 30,
1993. Based on an estimated interest rate of 6.5 percent, the
City's General Fund will be required to repay $1,625,000 in
interest during FY 1993-94 or $406,250 per quarter. The quarterly
payment mechanism would consist of the Airport deducting an
estimated $406,250 from its estimated $3.75 million quarterly
concession revenue payment to the City's General Fund, so that
the City would receive an estimated net amount of $3,343,750
quarterly in 1993-94.
3. The $1,625,000 paid to the Airport for the first year would
consist entirely of interest payments, and would not diminish
the principal amount owed. The City would begin to make
payments toward the principal during the second year of the
loan. Attached is the proposed quarterly repayment schedule as
proposed in the Advance Agreement.
4. The proposed loan would benefit the City in that it would
ameliorate the large budget reductions over the balance of Fiscal
Year 1992-93 that would otherwise have to be made in order to
compensate for the loss of State funding.
5. A copy of the draft agreement includes Section 3.1 Issuance of
Additional Revenue Bonds to Meet Future Air Transportation
Needs which states the following; "The City will use its best
efforts to issue Airport revenue bonds in an amount sufficient to
fund necessary and appropriate elements of the (Airport's)
Master Plan." According to Ms. Gittens, the airlines requested
this provision to ensure that the proposed agreement will not
affect the financing of the Master Plan. However, the issuance of
revenue bonds (see Items 3 and 4, Files 101-92-11 and 170-92-13 of
this report which would approve the issuance and appropriation
of $2.4 billion in Airport Second Series Revenue Bonds for the
purpose of financing the Airport's Master Plan projects) is not
directly related to the proposed agreement regarding the $25
million advance from the Airport to the General Fund. In
addition, under Section 2.6 Future Assistance of the proposed
agreement, there is language which states, "..the City will not
assess, appropriate or take any other action, either directly or
indirectly, to cause the City to receive any additional Airport
revenues, funds or monies during any period in which any
reimbursement obligation remains outstanding pursuant to this
agreement."
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
6. The Budget Analyst believes that Section 2.6 Future
Assistance , should be sufficient language to prevent the City
from taking further capital improvement funds from the Airport
and that Section 3.1 Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds to
Meet Fut ure Air Transportation Needs would still require
separate legislative action by the Board of Supervisors in order to
approve Airport revenue bond requests. As such, the Budget
Analyst believes that the inclusion of Section 3.1 Issuance of
Additional Revenue Bonds to Meet Future Air Transportation
Needs is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
Recommendation: Because the City's FY 1992-93 budget includes the $25 million
advance payment from the Airport, approve the proposed
resolution. However, the inclusion of Section 3.1 Issuance of
Additional Revenue Bonds to Meet Future Air Transportation
Needs is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors as
described in Comments 5 & 6 above.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Schedule 2
Advance of Annual Service Payment
Repayment Schedule
Fiscal Year Quarterly Payment
93/94 Interest Only
94/95 Interest Plus 1.25% of Advance Amount
95/96 Interest Plus 2.5% of Advance Amount
96/97 Interest Plus 3.75% of Advance Amount
97/98 Interest Plus 5.0% of Advance Amount
98/99 Interest Plus 6.25% of Advance Amount
90/00 Interest Plus 6.25% of Advance Amount
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Items 3 and 4 - Files 170-92-13 and 101-92-11
Department:
Items:
Amount:
San Francisco Airports Commission
Ordinance appropriating $2,400,000,000 in Master Plan Bond
proceeds for Near Term Master Plan Projects including
construction, capitalized interest, reserve funds and bond
underwriter discount and issuance costs (File 101-92-11).
Resolution approving the issuance of up to $2,400,000,000 in
San Francisco International Airport Second Series Revenue
Bonds which may be divided into as many as 15 separate
issues for the purpose of financing Airport Master Plan
Projects, and approving a minimum interest rate for those
bonds (File 170-92-13).
Not to exceed $2,400,000,000
Source of Funds: Airport Revenue Bonds
Description: Section 17.306(a) of the City Charter provides that the Airports
Commission has the authority to issue Airport Revenue
Bonds for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving
or developing Airport facilities, subject to the approval of the
Board of Supervisors. The Airports Commission has
authorized the issuance of not to exceed $2.4 billion aggregate
principal amount of its San Francisco International Airport
Second Series Revenue Bonds in up to 15 separate bond
issues, known as the Master Plan Issues, for the purpose of
financing the Near Term Master Plan Projects. The
proposed resolution (File 170-92-13) would authorize the
Airports Commission to issue up to $2.4 billion in bonds for
the purposes identified in the companion Supplemental
Appropriation (File 101-92-11) which would appropriate the
requested funds as follows:
Categ ory
Amount
Construction $1,802,000,000
Capitalized Interest 336,000,000
Reserve Funds 206,000,000
Underwriter Discount and Issuance Costs 56000.000
Total $2,400,000,000
Under the provisions of the Charter, the bonds issued by the
Airports Commission are obligations of the Airport and
neither the credit nor taxing power of the City is pledged to
the payment of the principal or interest of these bonds.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Rather, the bond interest and redemption payments are
supported solely by Airport revenues.
The Charter also specifies in Section 7.306(b) that Revenue
Bonds issued by the Airport shall bear a rate of interest not to
exceed that which may be fixed by the Airports Commission
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. In
accordance with State law, the proposed resolution would
establish mainmnm rates of interest for each of the up to 15
Master Plan Bond Issues as follows: 12 percent per annum
with respect to bond issues, the interest income due and
payable on which is excluded from gross income for Federal
income tax purposes; and 15 percent per annum with respect
to bond issues, the interest on which is included in gross
income for federal income tax purposes.
The Airport's financial advisors, Lazard Freres & Company
and Grigsby Brandford & Company, a Minority Business
Enterprise (MBE), estimate that the bonds can actually be
sold at an interest rate between 6.3 and 6.5 percent for issues
in which the interest earned is excluded from Federal
income taxes, and between 7.5 to 8.0 percent for issues in
which the interest earned is included for Federal income tax
purposes. Because Airport bond debt service is paid from net
Airport revenues received from the airlines and
concessionaires doing business at the Airport, all prospective
bond issuances must be approved by the Airline Affairs
Committee which is composed of representatives from the 19
airlines operating at San Francisco International Airport.
The Airline Affairs Committee has approved the proposed
new bonds with a stipulation that the interest rate cannot
exceed 12 percent for bond issues in which the interest
earned is excluded from Federal income taxes and cannot
exceed 15 percent for bond issues in which the interest
earned is included for Federal income tax purposes.
On November 3, 1992, the Airports Commission approved the
new Master Plan for San Francisco International Airport
which includes the Near Term Master Plan Projects
estimated to cost $1,919,427,000 (listed in Attachment I) and
(located by letter on the map in Attachment II). Both
attachments were provided by the Airport. According to Mr.
John Martin of the Airport, the difference of $117,427,000
between the $1,919,427,000 total construction cost of the Near
Term Master Plan Projects and the $1,802,000,000 total
construction cost component in the total $2.4 billion in Master
Plan Bond proceeds is the anticipated interest income to be
earned by the Airport which will be accumulated over the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
next four years from the sale of up to fifteen separate bond
issues.
The $1,919,427,000 identified for construction projects would
accomplish the following:
Terminals
International Terminal (A, see Attachment II), $317,906,000 -
Construction of the new International Terminal will require
the phased demolition and reconstruction of Boarding Area
B, ultimately providing a new facility of approximately
500,000 square feet. Boarding Area B, Phase I, will provide
replacement gates during the construction of Boarding Area
A and will provide additional domestic gates to satisfy the
long-term forecast demand.
Boarding Area A, Phase I (B, see Attachment II),
$154,103,000 - Construction of the new International
Terminal will require the phased demolition and
reconstruction of Boarding Area B, ultimately providing a
new facility of approximately 500,000 square feet. Boarding
Area B, Phase I, will provide replacement gates during the
construction of Boarding Area A and will provide additional
domestic gates to satisfy the long-term forecast demand.
Boarding Area G (C, see Attachment II), $162,384,000 - A
new Boarding Area a G", approximately 350,000 square feet,
adjacent to the North Terminal, will be identical to new
Boarding Area "A" and does not replace an existing boarding
area.
Boarding Area B - Phase I (D, see Attachment II),
$109,852,000 - Construction of the new International
Terminal will require the phased demolition and
reconstruction of Boarding Area B, ultimately providing a
new facility of approximately 500,000 square feet. Boarding
Area B, Phase I, will provide replacement gates during the
construction of Boarding Area A and will provide additional
domestic gates to satisfy the long-term forecast demand.
Boarding Area D Remodel (R, see Attachment II), $24,500,000
- The existing International Terminal and Boarding Area D
will be renovated and converted into a domestic terminal.
The square footage and number of gates currently in use will
remain approximately the same.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Air Freight/Airline M«inten«nra
Plot 1 Cargo Maintenance Facility (P, see Attachment II) -
$44,392,000 - The existing Plot 1 facilities will be demolished
and a smaller replacement facility will be located to the north
of the existing site to accommodate the construction of the
Boarding Area "A".
West Field Cargo/Maintenance Facility - Phase 1 (F, see
Attachment II) - $39,680,000 - The West Field
Cargo/Maintenance Area will provide both replacement and
new buildings for airfreight and aircraft maintenance
operations. This area will provide the flexibility to
accommodate both airfreight and aircraft maintenance
facilities in several building totaling approximately 325,000
square feet. The facilities will consist of high-bay buildings
with truck loading-unloading on the landside and aircraft
hardstands on the airside.
North Field Cargo/Maintenance Facility - (G, see Attachment
II) - $49,600,000 - The North Field Cargo/Maintenance Area
will be configured to accommodate a more efficient facility
configuration and provide additional aircraft parking area.
The facilities to be developed in this area represent both new
and replacement buildings for airfreight and/or aircraft
maintenance functions. Approximately 432,000 square feet
will be constructed in the area, consisting of both high-bay
airfreight buildings and/or aircraft maintenance hangars.
Airside access is provided via Taxiway C and landside access
via the North Field Access Road.
Remodel TWA Cargo Facility (Q, see Attachment II) -
$6,125,000 - The TWA Cargo Facility, located to the South of
Boarding Area A, will be reconfigured to accommodate the
planned extension of Taxiways A and B at the South
Terminal.
Airport Support
Multipurpose Facility (I, see Attachment H) - $3,100,000 - The
multipurpose Airport operations facility will replace a
number of the emergency contingency functions currently
located in Building 1000 and will provide high-security VTP
processing. The multilevel facility will consist of
approximately 15,000 square feet with an apron Area located
adjacent to Taxiway C for aircraft parking. Ground access
on the landside will be provided via the realigned North Field
Access road.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
in
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Relocation of Crash Fire Rescue (CFR)/Support Building (J,
see Attachment II) - $5,268,000 - The existing CFR support
building of approximately 12,000 square feet is to be relocated
from its current location on the east side of CFR Building 1.
The facility is utilized for the storage of equipment required to
maintain CFR operations at the Airport. The existing CFR
Building 1 will have to be relocated due to the clearance
requirements for the proposed adjacent B747-400 taxiway.
General Aviation
Fixed Based Operator/General Aviation (FBO/GA) Building
(E, see Attachment II) - $19,840,000 - The existing FBO,
located at the end of Road R-6, and the Chevron general
aviation facilities, located on Plot 85, with a combined
building area of 88,112 square feet, will be relocated to the
East Field area in a 90,000 square foot facility. The current
location will be utilized for roadway extension and
cargo/maintenance facilities.
Crnnmerpifl ]
Service Station (S, see Attachment II) - $1,225,000 - The
existing Chevron Service Station, consisting of an
approximately 1,000 square foot facility and adjoining
exterior service area, will be relocated to Lot CC. The current
location on the north side of the terminal access road will be
utilized by the proposed Ground Transportation Center.
Transportation
Ground Transportation Center (K, see Attachment II) -
$269,945,000 - The development of a six-floor Ground
Transportation Center will provide a centralized processing
point for passengers arriving or departing the Airport via
rental cars, shuttle van or buses. The facility will provide 2.5
million square feet of space and will be composed of two
multi-level structures that will flank each side of the
Airport's entry roadway and share the two-level arrival and
departure roadway with the proposed new International
Terminal. This facility will significantly reduce the
vehicular demand on the existing terminal loop roadways.
Passengers will access the terminal via the Airport Light
Rail System (ALRS) from within the Ground Transportation
Center. The facility will free up limited terminal roadway
and curb space utilized by private vehicles, thereby relieving
congestion on the roadways during peak-hour periods.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Airport Light Rail System - Phase I (see Attachment III)
$330,990,000* The Airport Light Rail System (ALRS) will
connect the Ground Transportation Center to the terminal
areas. The ALRS will have a fixed dual guideway support
system forming two independent loops with vehicles moving
in opposite directions. The existing terminals will be served
by stations along the front entrances at each boarding area on
both the upper and lower levels. The new International
Terminal will be served by an elevated station in the atrium
above the terminal's third level. The Ground Transportation
Center will have four stations serving the transportation
lobby and rental car counters. The system will cross over the
Bayshore Freeway (US 101), to a mass transit station west of
US 101, cross back over US 101 and then proceed north along
the Airport's frontage road to serve remote parking facilities
and major Airport employment centers, including the United
Airlines Maintenance Base. In June 1992, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) District Board and San Mateo County Transit District
(SamTrans) agreed to extend BART to a transportation center
on Airport property adjacent to the CalTrain tracks west of
US 101. This transportation center is expected to be
operational by 1997 serving CalTrain, SamTrans, and all
areas of the Airport via an extension from the ALRS. It is
expected that the BART extension to the Airport would not be
completed until 2003, six years after the completion of the
ALRS and the transportation center connecting CalTrain
and SamTrans with the Airport. The last stop of BART to the
Airport would be 1.5 miles from the Airport. At that point,
BART passengers going to the Airport would transfer to the
ALRS to complete their trip to one of many passenger and
employee destination points at the Airport.
♦Total of $349,600,000 with the related Airport Light Rail
System Maintenance Facility (see below).
Airport Light Rail System Maintenance Facility (see
Attachment HI) - $18,600,000 - The Airport Light Rail System
(ALRS) consists of 6.5 miles of guideway and fifteen 3-car
train units, all of which require routine maintenance. The
ALRS Maintenance Facility will be located adjacent to the
long-term parking area and will consist of approximately
14,000 square feet of enclosed maintenance area. The
maintenance building will include functions such as off-line
switching, vehicle inspection, washing and maintenance.
The building will contain offices, storerooms, lunch/locker
facilities and maintenance shops. Off-line guideways,
sufficient to store the entire fleet of vehicles, will be provided.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
BJjgBfiflangHia Facilities
Relocation of Coast Guard Facilities (T, see Attachment II) -
$24,500,000 - Several modifications to the existing U. S. Coast
Air Station (USCG) are required to accommodate the new 2-
lane USCG Perimeter Road.
Seaplane Harbor Dock Facility (U, see Attachment H) -
$1,225,000 - A multi-use dock facility, located adjacent to the
U. S. Coast Guard Station (USCG) at Seaplane Harbor, is
planned for the possibility of shipping and receiving freight
via ferry service and as an alternative means of Airport
access in an emergency situation.
Parking
Addition to Lot a D" (M, see Attachment II) - $9,800,000 -
Grading and paving a parking lot for 2,000 cars in what is
now a portion of the clear zone and a portion of the North
Detention Pond and joining it to present Lot "D" by relocating
the service road to the field side of the parking lot. This
project will add parking for the public. Improvement will
include fighting, pavement painting, drainage and fencing.
Lot "DD" Paving (N, see Attachment II) - $9,188,000 - This
project will grade and pave a parking lot for 3,000 vehicles.
Parking Lot "DD" will be located west of the present United
Airlines (UAL) employee parking lot at San Bruno Avenue
and South Airport Boulevard. This lot will provide parking
for employees and the public.
Lot "DD" Parking Structure (O, see Attachment II) -
$44,640,000 - The multi-story parking structure to be built
adjacent to Lot DD is planned to accommodate long-term
public parking, as well as tenant and Airport employee
parking. The parking structure will be accessed via South
Airport Boulevard and will provide approximately 3,000
parking stalls.
Roadway Improvements
United States Coast Guard (USCG) Perimeter Roadway (V,
see Attachment II) - $12,250,000 - Construction of a new 2-
lane roadway on the Bay side of the present USCG Air Station
to provide unsecured access to the East Field development.
The construction of an unimpeded unsecured roadway
adjacent to the USCG Air Station seawall will permit
employees and visitors to the East Field area to access those
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
13
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
facilities from the North Access Road. Development of the
Multi-purpose Operations Facility, FBO/GA Building, and
aircraft maintenance facilities will greatly increase the
number of movements to this area, and security and safety
issues dictate that an unsecured roadway be constructed.
Improvements will include lighting, signing, signalization,
pavement painting, fencing and drainage.
North Access Road (W, see Attachment II) - $1,225,000 - The
current North Access Road from South Airport Boulevard to
the USCG Perimeter Road is mostly two-lane. This project
would widen the roadway to four lanes plus left-turn and
merging lanes (where feasible) in order to accommodate
increasing airport traffic. Improvements will include
lighting, signing, signalization, pavement painting, fencing
and drainage.
Ramps and Elevated Roadways (H, see Attachment II) -
$216,807,000 - A new elevated roadway system around the
Ground Transportation Center (GTC) and connecting ramps
to the Bayshore Freeway (US 101) and the Interstate 380
viaduct. This project would provide direct access to the new
International Terminal and the GTC from US 101. This
project includes a connection from the Interstate 380 viaduct
to US 101 northbound with related realignments of the San
Bruno Avenue interchange and Road R-3. Improvements
would include lighting, signing, landscaping, pavement
painting, fencing, drainage, and improvements to existing
surface roadways.
Widen South Perimeter Road (X, see Attachment II) -
$1,225,000 - The Airport frontage road from the West
Underpass to Millbrae Avenue now exists as two lanes of
traffic, one in each direction. This project would widen the
roadway to four lanes (where it is feasible) in order to
accommodate increasing airport traffic and minimize traffic
congestion. Improvements would include lighting, signing,
signalization, pavement painting, fencing, drainage, and
improvement to existing intersections.
Airside Improvements
Taxiway A & B Realignment - North Terminal (Y, see
Attachment II) - $12,250,000 - The realignment of Taxiways
"A" and "B" at the North Terminal will provide the necessary
clearances for aircraft taxiing and parking and for service
roads around the Boarding Area "G". Work includes
replacement and overlay of pavements, and installation of
centerline lighting and striping.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Taxiway A & B Realignment (Z, see Attachment II) - South
Terminal - Phase II - $11,129,000 - The realignment of
Taxiways "A: and :B: at the South Terminal will provide the
necessary clearances for aircraft taxiing and parking and for
service roads around the new Boarding Area "A". Work
includes replacement and overlay of pavements, and
installation of centerline lighting and striping.
Demolition
Demolition for Near-Term Master Plan Projects (Related to
all proposed projects) - $5,653,000 - Various demolition
contracts to prepare areas for construction of proposed
Master Plan projects.
Other Support Projects
Land Surveying (Related to all proposed projects) - $750,000 -
Various contracts to provide needed topographical, boundary
and construction surveys on an "as-needed" basis during
design and construction of proposed Master Plan Projects.
Geotechnical Investigation (Related to all proposed projects) -
$475,000 - Various contracts to provide review, exploration
and analysis of subsurface soil conditions in conjunction
with proposed Master Plan Projects.
Materials Testing (Related to all proposed projects) -
$1,000,000 - Various contracts to provide soils sampling,
testing and inspection, concrete review, inspection and
testing, welding inspection, and other materials testing in
conjunction with proposed Master Plan Projects.
Hazardous Waste Removal (Related to all proposed projects) -
$9,800,000 - Various contracts for the identification, removal,
packaging and transportation of hazardous waste to legal
disposal sites, or processing into non-hazardous materials,
in conjunction with demolition, site preparation and
construction of proposed Master Plan Projects.
The Airports Commission's approval of the Master Plan
occurred upon their review of an environmental impact
report (EER) prepared and certified by the Department of City
Planning and requirements governed by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
The EIR has found that, without mitigation measures, the
San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) Master Plan
would have the following significant environmental impacts:
• An unacceptable level of traffic congestion at the following
intersections: California Drive at Millbrae Avenue (a.m. and
p.m. peak hours), Rollins Road and Millbrae Ave. (p.m. peak
hours), and Long-Term Parking Road and Road R-3 on SFIA
property and at Holly Street and Ralston Avenue (a.m. and
p.m. peak hours).
• An unacceptable level of traffic congestion on certain
freeway ramps and freeway sections in the vicinity of SFIA.
• Increased noise levels at sensitive receptors such as
schools during construction activities.
• Violations of air quality standards due to dust production
during construction.
• Increased frequency of violation of carbon monoxide
standards at certain nearby intersections (violations would
occur at these locations without the project but would occur
more frequently with the project and without extensive
transportation mitigation).
• Air pollutant emissions that exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District thresholds.
• Possible negative impacts on subsurface cultural
resources (i.e. pre-historical Indian artifacts) during
construction.
• The potential for sediment produced by construction
activities entering storm drains and/or the bay.
• Soil temporarily exposed to erosion during construction.
• Exposure of construction workers, other Airport workers
or the public, to hazardous wastes if hazards are found in
soils or ground water in or around construction areas.
• Contribute to cumulative traffic increases on US 101 in the
vicinity that would add to traffic congestion on some
segments of the freeway and would contribute to cumulative
air quality impacts in San Mateo County and the Bay Area
region.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
As a result of the EIR, the Airports Commission has adopted
mitigation measures to alleviate the potentially significant
impacts associated with construction proposals of the Master
Plan Projects and found overriding considerations regarding
the remaining unavoidable project impacts.
The following mitigation measures and overriding
considerations are addressed in the Airport Commission's
Mitigation Plan:
(a) provide up to $120 million in funding to insulate noise
impacted homes in the communities surrounding the
Airport (as defined in the 65 Community Noise Equivalent
Level* (CNEL) contour as it existed in 1983 without any carve
out for homes purchased after 1983);
(b) construct a $349.6 million on Airport Light Rail System
(ALRS) ($330,990,000) and Maintenance Facility ($18,600,000)
(see Attachment III) connecting with an intermodal
transportation center for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART),
CalTrain and SamTrans to provide access to all parts of the
Airport and to provide employees who work at the Airport a
meaningful public transit alternative (see earlier description
under Transportation);
(c) work with the Roundtable (membership includes a
Supervisor from the County of San Mateo and the Mayors
from the Cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster
City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South
San Francisco) on a comprehensive annual plan of noise-
related measures to be addressed by the Airport and the
Roundtable and fund the Roundtable at $100,000 per year;
(d) contribute $250,000 to a study of traffic congestion in San
Mateo County and work with the City/County Association of
Governments to development a joint work plan to implement
the recommendations of the study;
(e) spend up to $120 million for the construction of an
intermodal transit center connecting the proposed Airport
Light Rail System (ALRS) to CalTrain west of U.S. 101;
* See (a) above. This is a measurement of cumulative noise
rather than single event noise.
(f) implement a transportation system management program
that will result in a 20 percentage point reduction in the
percentage of passengers and employees who travel to the
airport by single-occupant vehicles and meet the countywide
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
standards of the San Mateo County Congestion Management
Plan;
(g) fund and provide for construction of a child care center
west of U. S. 101, in conjunction with a new multi-modal
transit Station; and
(h) implement a comprehensive series of mitigation
measures specifically designed to reduce other impacts of the
Master Plan, including air quality, construction noise,
energy, cultural resources, public services, seismicity, and
geology.
Comments: 1. As indicated above, the difference of $117,427,000 between
the $1,919,427,000 total construction cost of the Near Term
Master Plan Projects and the $1,802,000,000 total construction
cost component in the total $2.4 billion in Master Plan Bond
proceeds is the anticipated interest income to be earned by the
Airport which will be accumulated over the next four years
from the sale of up to fifteen separate bond issues.
2. Mr. Chris Brittle of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) reports that the annual number of
passenger trips using airport facilities in the San Francisco
Bay Region will more than double from the 1990 level of 42
million to 84.7 million by the year 2010 and the anticipated
San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) share of that
total wffl increase from 29.7 million (32 million in 1991-92) to
49.9 million annual passengers, although SFIA's total
percentage would decrease from 70.7 percent to 59.0 percent
of the total number of passengers between 1990 and 2010.
3. Mr. Leo Fermin of the Airport advises that the number of
annual SFIA passenger trips for FY 1991-92 totaled 32.0
million and the projected number of annual SFIA passenger
trips for the years 2000 and 2006 will increase to 42.6 million
(33.1 percent) and 51.0 million (59.4 percent) respectively.
The 51.0 million passenger trip projection for 2006 is 1.1
million higher than the MTC 49.9 million passenger trip
projection for 2010. The proposed construction would
increase the number of boarding area gates from the current
80 to 103 (28.8 percent) by 1996. The current and proposed
passenger aircraft gate distributions are as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
As of
As of
Ares
Sent. 1991
June 1996
South Terminal
39
33
Central Terminal
10
14
North Terminal
31
30
New International Terminal
-
JS
Total Gates
80
103
4. Mr. Louis Turpen, Director of Airports, estimates that the
anticipated construction during the four year period 1993 to
1997, will generate $43 million in new sales tax revenues
area- wide of which $10 million in new sales tax revenues has
been estimated for San Francisco ($2.5 million per year). The
$10 million or 23.3 percent of the total amount is the Airport's
estimate of sales tax which will accrue to San Francisco from
supplies purchased for the proposed new construction and
the goods purchased by construction workers hired to
complete the construction work. The anticipated work is
estimated to create 4,025 construction and other related jobs
area-wide of which 1,000 jobs or 24.8 percent would go to San
Francisco residents as projected by the Airport using data
from the Department of City Planning's Environmental
Impact Report (EER) for the San Francisco International
Airport Master Plan. However, the Budget Analyst notes
that the EIR projections (EER, Volume I, page 396) are for
permanent employments and may not be fully comparable for
the projection of construction jobs.
5 Mr. Turpen also estimates, that during the three year
period from 1997 to 2000, after construction is completed,
Airport businesses are estimated to generate $19 million in
new sales and business tax revenues for the City ($6.33
million per year) and $17.9 million in additional service
payments to the City ($6.0 million per year) from new
businesses and concessionaires (15 percent of the total
estimated annual concession revenues of $39.8 million.
6. According to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport, award of
all contracts will be made by competitive bid and will be made
in accordance with the Airport's Minority Business
Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) plan.
According to the Airport's internal records, during FY 1991-
92, July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992, the Airport has
awarded $12,066,291, or 29.8 percent of total contract dollars
to minority businesses and $613,143, or 1.5 percent of total
contract dollars to women businesses.
BOARD OF SU PERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
7. Ms. Gittens states that the contracts for the first scheduled
work to be funded under the subject supplemental
appropriation are expected to be put out to bid in February
1993, with construction of the final projects expected to be
completed in Fiscal Year 1997/1998.
8. According to Ms Gittens of the Airport, the $1,802,000,000
($1,919,427,000 less $117,427,000 anticipated interest to be
earned from the Revenue Bonds, see Comment 1) set aside for
construction would be distributed as follows: $247,800,000 for
engineering design ($233,000,000) and art enrichment
($14,800,000) and $1,554,200,000 for construction contracts.
Until the Airport identifies the contractors and contract
details, and provides information on the contractor's
MBE/WBE status, the $1,554,200,000 set aside for outside
contracts should be reserved.
9. Attachment V is a letter from Mr. Turpen, Director of
Airports, to the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
which identifies the impact of the subject Airport Light Rail
System (ALRS) on the proposed extension of BART to the
Airport (see Airport Light Rail System Mitigation Measure
(b)). In that letter to the Finance Committee, Mr. Turpen
states "The Budget Analyst has also asked that I comment on
the impact of the passage of a currently-circulating initiative
petition which calls for BART extending to a location
underneath the Airport garage rather than to the
transportation center. The concept envisioned by the petition
has not been subjected to any engineering or cost analyses,
according to MTC. However, the Airport Master Plan
projects do not foreclose alternate options to BART."
10. Subsequent to the June 1992 MTC, BART and SamTrans
approvals of the BART extension to the San Francisco
International Airport, a voter's initiative petition has been
proposed which would provide a BART loop tunneling
underground from the proposed transportation center to a
BART station five stories under the existing parking garage
at the Airport (Attachment IV). This loop would replace the
Airport's light rail service system (as described above) to the
transportation center. Preliminary estimates for the
proposed loop construction to extend BART to beneath the
existing parking garage at the Airport range between $300
and $400 million compared with an estimated $20 million for
the construction of a BART station next to the proposed
transportation center west of US 101 according to cost
estimates provided by Mr. Turpen.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
11. Mr. Turpen advises that locating a transportation center
west of US 101 linking BART, CalTrain and SamTrans to the
Airport with the Airport Light Rail System (ALRS) would
better serve the immediate and future needs of Airport
passengers and employees alike than the alternative of
linking of BART directly into the Airport which would take
several additional years to complete. In addition, the ALRS
would permit the ready distribution of both passengers and
employees directly to several different terminal and work
station sites within the Airport as opposed to concentrating
the arrival of all BART users at one terminus. Further, the
tunneling of BART into the existing Airport transportation
and terminal complex would require the removal of several
piers which support the present Airport building complex.
12. Attachment VI is a memorandum from State Senator
Kopp, the author of the initiative petition being circulated to
provide for a BART station five stories under the existing
parking garage at the Airport. Senator Kopp states that Mr.
Turpen has omitted that the Boards of MTC, BART and
SamTrans have also approved BART's extension directly into
the Airport if the City and County of San Francisco could
finance the extension. In addition, Senator Kopp states that
Mr. Frank Wilson, BART's General Manager, has publicly
predicted completion of the a BART station within the Airport
in 1997 and not 2003 as identified by Mr. Turpen, whereas
Mr. Turpen's estimate of a 1997 completion date for ALRS
may be optimistic in light of possible litigation sponsored by
nearby cities. Also, Senator Kopp points out that the initiative
petition does not prohibit the construction and operation of an
ALRS among the Airport terminals nor, as Mr. Turpen
advises, does it compel the construction of an Airport loop,
even though it is the least expensive alternative. Finally,
Senator Kopp's memorandum states that Airport officials
informed BART officials last spring that the BART extension
directly into the Airport would cost $125,000,000 as compared
with the ALRS costing approximately $250,000,000. Senator
Kopp states that a March 1991 engineering report concludes
that the piles supporting the present Airport building
complex can be safely removed without jeopardizing support.
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Recommendations: 1. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 170-92-13) to issue
$2,400,000,000 in bonds for the construction of Near-Term
Master Plan Projects is a policy decision for the Board of
Supervisors.
2. In accordance with Comment No. 8 above, amend the
proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (File 101-
92-11) to reserve $1,554,200,000 of the amount requested for
construction contracts (see Comment 8 above) pending
identification of the contractors, the MBE/WBE status of the
contracts and the contract cost details. Approval of the
amended ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
22
Attachment I
EXHIBIT A
KEAK.TERM MASTER PIAJf PROJECTS
Project Description
Project Coat 1
TfrmlnsU
Intl Terminal (Arrivals BJdj)
S 317,906
Boardin| Area A
154403
Boardiaj Area O
1623M
Boardin|AreaB-PhaseI
109332
Boarding Area D, Remodel
24.300
768,745
AJr Frdrht/AJrline Maintenance
Plot 1 Carxo/Maiat Facility 44,392
West Field Ctrjo/MiinL Fac-Fh. I 59,640
North Field Carjo/Maint. Facility 49300
Remc>dd TWA Carjo Facility 6.125
139,797
Airport Support
Multipurpose Faculty 3400
Relocation-CFR/Support Buildinj 5268
8368
Qtr\tn] AvJMign
FBOBuHdin|
Commerdal
Service Station
19340
1325
TfrftspYrwipa
Ground Transportation Center 269345
Light Rail System (LRS>Phase I 330390
LRS Maintenance Facility 18.600
S 619335
Project Description
Project Cost»
Miscellaneous Ficflttfcs
Relocatkm-Coast Guard FacQlxio I 24300
Seaplane Harbor Dock FacQity |j2j
25,725
Addition to Lot TT
9300
LofDrrPavini
9488
Lot *DD* Paddni Stractare
44.640
63328
Roadway Improvements
USCG Perimeter Roadway
12350
North Access Road
1325
Ramps A Elevated Roadways
216307
Widen South Perimeter Road
lltf
231307
Alnide Improvements
Taxfway A & B Realignment
North Terminal
12350
Taxfway A & B Realignment
South Terminal-Phase II
1L122
23379
P?n9litfOfl
Preparation for Near -Term Project
i 5353
Other Support Projects
Land Surveyinf
750
Cto technical Investigation
475
Materials Testing
1300
Hazardous Waste Removal
9.800
12,075
Total
31.919.4
NOTE: ^Project costs are subject to change ft modification. Architectural,
engineering, inspection, contingency fees, and an allowance for art
enrichment are included in Project Cost. Master Plan Projects will
also include such other projects which may hereafter constitute
part of the Near-Term Master Plan.
23
Attachment II
Attachment ]
Attachment IV
ftLLdcnmeni v
NOV 30 '92 11 :56AM SFIA ADMINISTRATION
Honorable Jim Gonzalez. Chair November 30, 1992
Finance Committee
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Room 235, City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Supervisor Gonzalez:
The Budget Analyst has asked that I identify, "the impact of the subject Airport
Light Rail System (ALRS) on the proposed extension of BART to the airport."
As Indicated In the map attached to the Budget Analyst's report (Attachment
in), the plan for BART access to the Airport, approved by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), BART, and Sam Trans, is to extend BART
to a transportation center on Airport property adjacent to the CalTrain tracks.
The Airport's light-rail system would connect this transportation center to the
Airport passenger terminals, rental car garages, remote parking lots, United
Airlines Maintenance Base, cargo areas and a ferry service terminal. The
transportation center would serve CalTrain, BART and Sam Trans.
The Budget Analyst has also asked that I comment on the impact of the passage
of a currently-circulating initiative petition which calls for BART extending to
a location underneath the Airport garage rather than to the transportation
center, The concept envisioned by the petition has not been subjected to any
engineering or cost analyses, according to MTC. However, the Airport Master
Plan projects do not foreclose alternate options to BART.
Very truly yours.
yTurpen
Director of Airports
LAT:AG:bh
cc: Honorable Carole Migden
Honorable Terence Hallinan
Budget Analyst
Airports Commission
bcc: Admin/Chron/File/WP'Gonzalez
27
NOV 30 '92 06: 21PM
SAOMMCNTO *OOACS«
STATE CARTCX
83014 I .
<«!«< 443 0303
OSTWtCT OJFtCCB
M>D.CAMINOI«CAL«109 (J
•O. MN t aanCisco. CA «4Gao
(4181934 W««
Attachm e nt VI
Page 1 of 2
P.l
California fttate Senate
COMM1TTCKS
TAAIWTOflTATtON. CHAMIMAN
housing * ursan irruin
local oovchnmcnt
ftCVCNUC • TAXATION
TOxCB * WMmX »AFeTY
HANAQCMCNT
STATE SENATOR
QUENTIN L KOPP
SXXTH SCNATOWAL M3TWCT
REPRCSENTING SAN rftANOSCO AND SAN MATEO COUNT! tS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Harvey Rose,
Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors
Senator Quentin L. Kopp
Your memo to Finance Committee respecting
Items 3 and 4 - Files 170-92-13 and 101-92-11
November 30, 1992
I write respecting the proposed ordinance appropriating
$2,400,000,000 in Master Plan Bond proceeds for San Francisco's
Airport. I write to correct and elaborate on the information
supplied in the aforementioned report.
First, the report notes that MTC, BART and SamTrans
approved BART's extension to a station west of Highway 101. In
addition, as many San Franciscans know, the Boards of these
transportation agencies at the same time also approved BART's
extension directly into SFO if the City and County of San
Francisco could finance the extension. Final and more precise
plans for the exact routing of the extension await the results of
the "Preliminary Engineering" study which has yet to get under
way and which is expected to take approximately one year.
Second, Frank Wilson, BART's General Manager, has
publicly predicted completion of a BART station within SFO in
1997, if there are no delays. A new federal fast-track
transportation construction program may even hasten this date.
Information disseminated by Director of Airports Turpen
erroneously states such completion as 2003. On the other hand,
Turpen' s estimate of a 1997 completion date for the Automated
People Mover may be optimistic in light of possible litigation
sponsored by nearby cities, their residents or any other party
respecting the Airport's Master Plan.
Third, I am, indeed, sponsoring an initiative petition to
extend BART directly within SFO. The basic provision of the
initiative ordinance sponsored by Kopp's Good Government
28
At t achment VI
Page 2 of 2
Committee requires that responsible city officials take all
actions necessary to effectuate the extension of BART service
into the Airport. The initiative ordinance does not prohibit the
construction and operation of the Automated People Mover among
the Airport terminals nor, as Mr. Turpen asserts, does it compel
the construction of an Airport loop, even though it is the least
expensive alternative to serve the Airport directly. To fund the
loop or any other alternative directly serving the Airport, the
initiative authorises the City to apply to the FAA to impost a
departure tax, like many other cities already do, of $3.00 or
less.
Fourth, Airport officials informed BART officials last
spring that a Automated People Mover would cost approximately
$250,000,000, and that segment from the so-called "ground
transportation center" into the Airport would cost $125,000,000.
A March, 1991 engineering report by Parsons, Brinckerhoff ,
concludes, contrary to representations falsely made to the Budget
Analyst, that the piles referred to in the Budget Analyst report,
can be safely removed without jeopardizing support.
29
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Items 5. 6. 7. and 8 - Files 101-92-13. 100-92-11. 101-92-14 and 100-92-10
Departments: Water Department
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
Items Item 5 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-
13) appropriating $12,020,375 for various capital improvement
projects, rescinding $4,700,000.
Item 6 - Motion (File 100-92-11) that the Board of Supervisors
transfers to the General Fund excess Water Department
monies, in the amount of $4,700,000, pursuant to San
Francisco Charter Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992.
Item 7 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-
14) appropriating $10,716,761 for various capital improvement
projects.
Item 8 - Motion (File 100-92-10) that the Board of Supervisors
transfers to the General Fund excess Hetch Hetchy
Department monies, in the amount of $2,500,000, pursuant to
San Francisco Charter Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992.
Source of Funds:
Item 5 - Water Department
Unappropriated Fund Balance $7,320,375
Hetch Hetchy Filtration Project (rescission) 4.700.000
Total $12,020,375
Description:
Item 7 - Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
Unappropriated Fund Balance $8,216,761
Sale of Electric Power Revenue 2.500.000
Total $10,716,761
Section 6.407(e) of the San Francisco Charter states that, "If
any accumulation in the surplus fund of any utility shall, in
any fiscal year, exceed 25 percent of the total expenditures of
such utility for operation, repairs and maintenance for the
preceding fiscal year, such excess may be transferred by the
Board of Supervisors to the General Fund of the City and
County, and shall be deposited by the (Public Utilities)
Commission with the Treasurer to the credit of such General
Fund."
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
At the end of fiscal year 1991-92, several Water Department
and Hetch Hetchy Water and Power capital improvement
projects were closed or their balances were reduced which
resulted in surpluses in the Unappropriated Fund Balances
of the two departments. These surpluses were then available
for transfer to the General Fund or for appropriation for
fiscal year 1992-93 capital or operating purposes.
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinances would
reappropriate funds from the Unappropriated Fund
Balances, from the Hetch Hetchy Filtration Project (a Water
Department capital improvement project that has a surplus)
and an increase in the estimated Hetch Hetchy Water and
Power revenues from the sale of electric power, to the
following capital improvement projects:
WATER DEPARTMENT
New Water Service $3,288,705
Millbrae Headquarters 2,446,007
Baden Pipeline 1,055,497
Noe Valley - Sunset Main 3,387,945
Groundwater Diesel 1,083,457
Sunol Water Treatment 758.764
Total $12,020,375
HETCH HETCHY WATER AND POWER
Replace Repair Paint Trolley Poles $740,512
Tunnels/Pipelines-Moccasin to Alameda 171,728
Eleanor Dam Repair 482,251
San Joaquin Pipeline 164,656
Moccasin Sewage Facility Expansion 620,774
Septic System Rehabilitation 695,329
Street Lighting Facility 419,322
Hetchy Road Maintenance and Rebuilding 1,155,760
Muni Facility Electric Efficiency 748,806
Electronics Governor System 557,578
Moccasin Penstock Saddle Replacement 717,598
San Joaquin Pipeline Crossing 1,572,705
Holm Powerhouse Drainage Control System 505,119
Early Intake Dam: Reconstruct Gates 340,907
Early Intake (Eleanor) Dam Repairs 423,716
Priest Outlet and Intake 1.400.000
Total $10,716,761
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Comment: The Controller's Office has determined that the Water
Department and Hetch Hetchy Water and Power surplus
funds met the requirements of Section 6.407(e) on June 30,
1992 and that a total of $7,200,000 including $4,700,000 from
the Water Department and $2,500,000 from Hetch Hetchy
Water and Power surplus funds can be transferred to the
General Fund pursuant to Section 6.407(e), effective July 1,
1992. The proposed transfers totaling $7,200,000 would offset
the City's budgetary shortfall resulting from reduced State
revenues for fiscal year 1992-93 in accordance with the plan
proposed by the Mayor's Office and previously considered by
the Board of Supervisors. The proposed $4,700,000 transfer
from the Water Department includes a $2,200,000 advance
from surplus funds in anticipation of the proposed sale of
Water Department property to the Olympic Club.
Recommendation; Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinances and motions.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 9 - File 101-92-12
Departments:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Superior and Municipal Courts
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating
$335,134 for professional and other contractual services,
services of other departments - Real Estate, Public Health,
City Planning, courthouse construction.
$335,134
Courthouse Construction Fund
Currently there are 20 Superior Court and eight Municipal
Court courtrooms and a jury assembly room in City Hall. All
criminal courtrooms are at the Hall of Justice including
eight Superior Court and 15 Municipal Court criminal
courtrooms. The Superior and Municipal Courts also have
administrative offices in City Hall. The Superior and
Municipal Courts occupy approximately 120,000 square feet of
space at City Hall. The Superior Court also has three
temporary courts in approximately 8,870 square feet of leased
space at 575 Polk Street.
The CAO's Office has devised a plan for making earthquake
repairs and seismic improvements to City Hall. In order to
make the earthquake repairs and seismic improvements to
City Hall, all occupants of City Hall, including the Superior
and Municipal Courts courtrooms, jury assembly room and
administrative offices, must be temporarily moved out of City
Hall. The CAO was previously authorized by the Board of
Supervisors to negotiate with a private developer to construct
a new office building at the corner of Polk and McAllister
Streets (see Comment No. 5). The CAO's present plan
includes permanently moving the courts currently in City
Hall into a new courthouse that would be constructed at the
corner of Polk and McAllister Streets instead of constructing
a new City office building at that location. When the new
courthouse is complete (projected completion by 1996 or 1997),
the City Hall court activities would be permanently moved to
the new courthouse and the other City Hall offices would be
temporarily moved to the War Memorial Veterans Building.
The proposed new courthouse would be six stories high plus
one basement for courthouse facilities and a second basement
for parking. The total space for courthouse facilities would be
approximately 225,000 square feet.
BOARD OF SUPER VISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
As previously noted, the proposed new courthouse would
occupy the same site that was previously proposed by the
CAO as a new building to accommodate City offices. The site
consists of the vacant parcel at the Northwest corner of Polk
and McAllister Streets (that was previously occupied by a
service station), the 450 McAllister Street parcel currently
occupied by the Bureau of Building Inspection and City
Planning, the 456 McAllister Street parcel currently occupied
by the California Society of Pioneers' Museum and the 460
McAllister Street parcel currently occupied by Traffic
Engineering. The California Society of Pioneers' Museum
building would be purchased by the City, the Museum would
be moved to a new location at City expense and the Museum
building would be demolished (the previous plan to construct
a new City office building involved bridging the new building
over the Museum building leaving the Museum building
intact). The CAO's present plans are to move the current
occupants of the City's office buildings at 450 and 460
McAllister Street to the building at 1660 Mission Street in
order to create a One-Stop Permit Processing Office. The CAO
has submitted a proposed ordinance to acquire the 1660
Mission Street building, Item 11, File 172-92-15 of this report.
The 450 and 460 McAllister Street buildings would be
demolished. The CAO's Office does not have a substitute plan
for the development of office space at this time other than to
use the City Hall space that would be vacated by the courts for
other City offices.
The CAO's Office estimates that the total cost of the new
courthouse would be approximately $50 million that would be
financed by the sale of Certificates of Participation. A
Certificate of Participation is an obligation of a public entity
based on a lease or installment loan agreement. Debt service
of the Certificates of Participation would be paid from the
Courthouse Construction Fund (See Comment No. 1).
The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide for
start-up costs that would allow the Superior Court to define
the interior design of the proposed new courthouse. The
Superior Court's preliminary estimates of start-up costs are
as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Project Management $39,667
A contractor would be selected to perform project
management services for the proposed
construction of a new courthouse. The estimated
amount of $39,667 is based on the salary and
fringe benefits costs of the City employee acting
as the project manager for the New Main
Library project.
Environmental Impact Report 50,000
City Planning provided this estimate based on
the cost of Environmental Impact Reports for
other, similar projects.
Attorney's Fees 50,000
The estimated cost of legal services for
negotiating a contract for the project manager
and for environmental matters is based on costs
that other cities have incurred in constructing
new courthouses.
Space Planning Services 75.000
Courthouse interior space design is a specialty
within the design field. This funding would
allow for contracting with a courtroom design
specialist.
Subtotal - Contractual Services $214.667
SERVICES OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
Real Estate Department $40,000
The Real Estate Department will be responsible
for the acquisition of the Society of California
Pioneers' Museum property and relocation of the
museum to another site. This estimate includes
funding for an independent appraisal ($15,000) of
the property by an outside appraiser, a special
museum consultant $5,000) and the services of
the Real Estate Department staff ($20,000).
Planning Department 42,000
City Planning fees are estimated by formula
based on the estimated total cost of the project.
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
35
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Department of Public Health $8.000
The Department of Public Health will perform
an investigation for toxic materials at the four
parcels. This investigation will determine if
underground tanks are still located at the
former service station site, the extent of any soil
contamination and the cleanup that would be
required.
Subtotal- Services of Other Departments $90.000
CONTINGENCIES $30.467
The Courts have included an allowance for
contingencies of ten percent of the total proposed
supplemental appropriation for start-up costs.
Total Proposed Supplemental Appropriation $335,134
Comments: 1. The Courthouse Construction Fund was established
pursuant to State law. Surcharges on civil and probate filing
fees, parking fines and criminal fines are deposited into the
Fund which can only be used for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, construction and financing of courtrooms,
courthouses or buildings containing courtrooms. The
Courthouse Construction Fund had a balance of
approximately $6.7 million as of July, 1992.
2. Filing fee and fine surcharges that accrue to the
Courthouse Construction Fund were recently increased by
the Board of Supervisors resulting in an approximate $2.3
million annual increase in the total surcharges accruing to
the Fund (approximately $2.4 million accrued to the
Courthouse Construction Fund in FY 1991-92 prior to the
increase and with the increase, approximately $4.7 million
will accrue to the Fund, annually beginning in FY 1992-93),
according to estimates by the Superior Court.
3. The Courthouse Construction Fund was the source of
funding for the renovations to the leased space at 575 Polk
Street for three temporary courtrooms required to reduce the
backlog of cases. A total of approximately $1.2 million has
been appropriated by the Board of Supervisors for renovations
and startup costs of the three temporary courtrooms at 575
Polk Street.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
36
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
4. Over the last two years, the City has purchased options to
allow for the future purchase of the air rights over the
California Society of Pioneers' Museum building that would
be required in order to construct a new City office building
over the Museum building. The City has paid a total of
$57,600 for the air rights options for the two years ending
December 31, 1992. The air rights over the Museum building
may not be needed under the CAO's new plan if the Museum
building can be purchased and then demolished.
5. The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the CAO to
negotiate for development of a new office building at the Polk
and McAllister Streets site with the firm of 450 McAllister
Associates. However, because of the new proposal to develop a
courthouse instead of an office building, 450 McAllister
Associates and the two other developers that submitted
proposals, but were not selected, will be asked to advise the
CAO as to how development of a courthouse would differ
from development of an office building. If, based on the
developers' advice, the CAO determines that there is a
significant difference, the three developers will be asked
submit new proposals based on the development of a new
courthouse. The CAO's Office will reconvene its Selection
Advisory Committee and, with advice from the Human
Rights Commission, will evaluate and select one of the new
proposals for development of the proposed new courthouse. If
one of the other developers (other than 450 McAllister
Associates) is selected, the CAO will seek Board of
Supervisors approval for authority to negotiate for
development of a new courthouse.
6. The CAO's Office reports that none of the contractors have
been selected for the Contractual Services budgeted at
$214,667 or for the independent appraiser ($15,000) and
museum consultant ($5,000) to be retained by the Real Estate
Department. Therefore the proposed supplemental
appropriation ordinance should be amended to reserve a total
of $234,667 ($214,667 for contractual services, $15,000 for the
independent appraiser and $5,000 for the museum
consultant) pending selection of the contractors and
determination of their professional hours, hourly billing
rates and MBE/WBE status.
7. Although it is normal to include funding for contingencies
during the construction phase of a project, usually ten
percent of the construction amount, the inclusion of funding
for contingencies at this preliminary phase is not normal.
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance should
be amended to eliminate the proposed funding for
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
37
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
contingencies in the amount of $30,467, which was based on
ten percent of the total requested funding for this phase of the
project.
8. Because the Board of Supervisors' previous authorization
for the CAO to negotiate with 450 McAllister Associates was
for the development of an office building and not for the
development of a courthouse, the proposed supplemental
appropriation ordinance should be amended to stipulate that
the CAO will obtain Board of Supervisors authorization to
negotiate with the developer that may be subsequently
selected to develop the proposed new courthouse.
Recommendations: 1. Approval of the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance to appropriate funding for the first stages of
building a new courthouse is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors. As previously noted, the CAO's former proposal
was to build a City-owned office building. A City-owned office
building was expected to have resulted in significant savings
to the City by eliminating various leased facilities currently
housing numerous City employees.
2. Should the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed
supplemental appropriation ordinance, it should be first
amended to a) eliminate the request for $30,467 for
contingencies resulting in a reduction in the total amount of
funding by $30,467 from $335,134 to $304,667, b) reserve a total
of $234,667, as detailed in Comment 6, above and c) to
stipulate that the CAO will obtain Board of Supervisors
authorization to negotiate with the developer that may be
subsequently selected to develop the proposed new
courthouse.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
38
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
ItemlQ -File 63-92-12
Department
Item:
Grant Amount:
Source of Grant
Grant Period:
Project
Description:
Mayor's Office/Mayor's Criminal Justice Council
Resolution amending Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91, which
had previously authorized the Mayor to apply for, accept and
expend funds in the amount of $721,186, as made available
through the Federal Office for Substance Abuse Prevention
for a project entitled "The Community Partnership
Program." The proposed resolution would authorize the
Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend funds in the amount
of $1,273,997.
$1,273,997
Federal Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP)
January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993
Community Partnership Program
The Community Partnership Program (CPP) is a City-wide
neighborhood and youth-oriented substance abuse prevention
program which began in October 1990 through funding
provided by the Federal Office of Substance Abuse Prevention
(OSAP). OSAP will provide $1,273,997 in Federal fiscal year
1992-93, which will fund the grant program during calendar
year 1993.
The Community Partnership Program consists of several
components, including the Neighborhood Empowerment
Program, which facilitates the efforts of parents, youth, and
neighborhood residents to develop community drug
prevention strategies in 17 City neighborhoods; the Mayor's
Youth Forum, which provides youth with leadership and
problem-solving skills; and the Mayor's Drug Prevention
Task Force, composed of 20 citizens who oversee the project
and advise the Mayor concerning substance abuse
prevention.
The Mayor's Office provides services to 8 of the 17
neighborhoods involved in the Neighborhood Empowerment
Program. The remaining 9 neighborhoods participate in the
program through a sub-grant by the Mayor's Office to the
Japanese Community Youth Council (JCYC), which
administers the program under the name "Neighborhoods in
Transition - A Multicultural Partnership." This division of
responsibility resulted because JCYC qualified for OSAP
funding a year after the Mayor's Office qualified for funding.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
39
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Budget
The funding for JCYC was therefore appended to the Mayor's
Office grant in late 1991.
The proposed resolution would authorize the Mayor to apply
for, accept and expend grant funds in the amount of
$1,273,997 by amending previous resolutions of the Board of
Supervisors which authorized the Mayor to apply for, accept
and expend $721,186 in grant funds for 1991 (see Comment 6).
Personnel
FTE
Amount
Principal Investigator
1.0
$70,737
Partnership Project Director
1.0
54,855
Empowerment Coordinator
1.0
46,417
Youth Forum Coordinator
1.0
45,188
Senior Epidemiologist
1.0
42,900
Project Evaluation Research Assistant
U2
41.800
Subtotal
6.0
$301^97
Fringe Benefits (@ 11 percent)
33,334
Total Personnel
Operating Expenses
Supplies
$10,000
Travel
5000
Total Operating Costs
Contractual Services
Neighborhoods in Transition
Empowerment Funds
Training - Mayor's Youth Forum
Mandatory Audit
Total Contractual Services
Total Direct Cost
Indirect Cost
Total Grant Amount
$624,000
196,000
63,605
5000
$335,231
15,000
$1^38,836
35.161
$1^73,997
Required Match: None
Indirect Costs: Indirect costs were negotiated with OSAP in the amount of
$35,161, which is approximately 5.4 percent of $649,997,
which is the total grant amount ($1,273,997), exclusive of
funding for the Neighborhoods in Transition program
operated by the JCYC ($624,000).
Comments: 1. The Mayor's Office reports that OSAP has indicated its
intention to fund the Community Partnership Program for a
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
40
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
five year period. The project began October 1, 1990, and is
expected to continue through September 30, 1995. According
to Mr. Keith Choy of the Mayor's Office, an application for
continued funding must be submitted annually, and the
Mayor's Office applied for the proposed funding for 1993 in
June, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be
amended to ratify actions previously taken.
2. The budget submitted by the Mayor's Office includes
average fringe benefits of only 11 percent of salary because
officials in the Mayor's Office who are exempt from Civil
Service requirements receive fewer benefits than Civil Service
employees, according to Mr. Choy.
3. The $196,000 in Empowerment Funds will be awarded to
community-based organizations to develop networks and
strategies for drug intervention efforts by neighborhood
residents in 8 neighborhoods targeted by the Mayor's Office.
These neighborhoods are the Western Addition, the
Tenderloin, Potrero Hill, the Mission District,
Bayview/Hunter's Point, Visitacion Valley/Sunnydale,
Oceanview-Merced-Ingleside, and Chinatown.
Mr. Choy reports that a Request for Proposal was issued in
September, 1992 and that a number of agencies have
responded, but that a final determination has not been made
regarding which agencies will receive the Empowerment
Funds. The Empowerment Funds in the amount of $196,000
should therefore be placed on reserve pending the
identification of the community-based organizations which
will conduct the Neighborhood Empowerment Program.
Mr. Choy reports that the Empowerment Funds for 1993 will
be augmented by approximately $350,000 in grant funds
which will be carried forward from 1992.
4. The $624,000 allocated as contractual services for the
Neighborhood in Transition Program will fund services
provided by the Japanese Community Youth Council in 9
additional City neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are
South of Market, Haight Ashbury, Sunset, Richmond, Hayes
Valley, Japantown, North Beach, Bernal Heights, and
Diamond Heights. JCYC has provided these services since
late 1991, and is reimbursed by the Mayor's Office for its
expenses in conducting the program.
5. The project budget also includes $63,605 to provide stipends
to youth who participate in workshops and community
activities sponsored by the Mayor's Youth Forum. Each
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
hi
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
youth is enrolled for a one-year internship beginning in
September and receives a stipend of $5.00/hour.
6. The proposed resolution, which would result in $1,273,997
in grant funds, would amend two previous resolutions of the
Board of Supervisors which concerned funding for the
Community Partnership Program. Resolution 858-90,
adopted October 22, 1990, authorized the Mayor to apply for,
accept, and expend $500,000 for the Community Partnership
Program for the period October 1, 1990 through September 30,
1991. Resolution 116-91, adopted January 30, 1991, amended
Resolution 858-90 by increasing the amount the Mayor was
authorized to apply for, accept, and expend from $500,000 to
$721,186, and extending the grant period by three additional
months, to December 31, 1991. In other words, these
previously adopted resolutions authorized a total of $721,186
for calendar year 1991, which was the first year of the project.
The effect of adopting the proposed resolution as written
would be to change the dollar amount of the grant authorized
for 1991 from $721,186 to $1,273,997, in order to reflect the
proposed grant amount for 1993. However, the Budget
Analyst notes that Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91 were
previously amended by Resolution 931-91 in October, 1991 to
reflect supplemental funds for this grant program, and that
Resolution 931-91 was itself amended in February, 1992 (File
68-92-1) to reflect continuation funds for 1992.
The Budget Analyst believes that it is not necessary for the
proposed resolution, which would authorize grant funding
for 1993, to amend Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91, which
authorized grant funding for 1991. Adopting such a
continuing series of amendments to the original resolutions
over the 5 years of the grant program will tend to confuse the
record of the Board of Supervisors authorizations for these
grant funds.
Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to
delete references to previous resolutions. Since the Mayor's
Office has already applied to OSAP for grant funds for 1993,
the proposed resolution should also be amended to ratify
actions previously taken. In addition, the proposed resolution
should be amended to reflect indirect costs in the amount of
$35,161.
The title of the proposed resolution should read as follows:
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
42
1 Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend
funds in the amount of $1,273,997, as made available
through the Federal Office for Substance Abuse
Prevention, for a project entitled, "The Community
Partnership Program," which includes indirect costs
in the amount of $35,161; and ratifying actions
previously taken.
The body of the proposed resolution should be amended as
follows:
1) At page 1, by deleting lines 15 through 24, and substituting
the words, "WHEREAS, the Federal government has advised
the City that $1,273,997 will be available to the City for the
period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, which
includes indirect costs of $35,161; now therefore be it..."
2) At page 2, lines 2 and 3, by deleting the words, "hereby
amends Resolutions No. 858-90 and 116-91 to authorize and
direct the Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend," and
substituting the words, "hereby authorizes and directs the
Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend..."
3) At page 2, line 6, by deleting the words "and, be it," and
substituting the words "and ratifies actions previously
taken."
4) At page 2, by deleting lines 7 through 9, which provide that
except for the amendments included in the proposed
resolution, the previous resolutions remain in full force and
effect.
7. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request submitted by
the Mayor's Office.
8. Mr. Choy states that disability access checklists will be
prepared for the community based agencies that receive
$196,000 in funding for the Neighborhood Empowerment
Program in 1993, as a provision of receiving grant funds.
However, Mr. Choy states that these checklists are not
available at this time, since the Mayor's Office has not
reached a final determination concerning which agencies
will receive funding. Therefore, the $196,000 for the
Neighborhood Empowerment Program should be reserved
pending identification of the agencies to perform services and
submission of disability access checklists for these agencies
to the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
43
'Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution as described in Comment
6 above, in order to avoid amending previous resolutions
which authorized grant funds for 1991, to include indirect
costs, and to ratify actions previously taken to apply for the
continuation grant.
2. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve $196,000 in
Empowerment Funds pending identification of the
community-based organizations that will provide services,
and submission of disability access checklists for these
agencies.
3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
44
File Number
lib-nl* \1
Grant Application Information Form
A document required to accompany a proposed resolution,?
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant ~ t 3& >■. r
To: The Board of Supervisors
Attn: Clerk of the Board ■-
The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying
resolution:
Department: MAYOR'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL
Contact Person: KEITH CHOY Telephone: (415) 554-6 558
Project Title: EMPOWERING PARENTS AND YOUTH PROJECT, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP
Grant Source: FEDERAL OFFICE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION, DEPT OF HEALTH
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary:
(SEE ATTACHED)
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $1 ,273,997
Maximum Funding Amount Available: $1 .273 .997
Reguired Matching Funds: none
Number of Positions Created and Funded:
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $825,000
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? $196,000 will be put out to bid
45
Grant Application Information Form
Page 2
Term of Grant: BUDGET PERIOD 01/01/93 - 12/31/93 " ^-- v
Date Department Notified of Available funds: 09/30/92 - Grand Awar ded
Application Due Date: JUNE 30. 1992 . " -
Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or
appropriations legislation):
This is a continuation grant application for the Federal Community
Partnership Program, funded by the Federal Office for Substance Abuse
Prevention, made available through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
The Community Partnership Program is designed to provide training
technical assistance leadership development and community organizing to
neighborhoods to prevent the incidence of substance abuse.
Hm^fkam.
Department Head Approval
46
PROJECT SUMMARY
The City and County of San Francisco, through the Mayor's Criminal Justice
Council, and the Mayor's Drug Prevention Task Force, continued to expand and
improve on numerous partnerships in a coordinated city wide effort to reduce
the incidence of alcohol and substance abuse. The Project is a five year project
funded by the Federal Office of Substance Abuse Prevention. The Community
Partnership Project legislation emphasizes the development of a variety of
Prevention and self-help approaches needed in a city of great economic and
cultural diversity.
The Empowering Parents and Youth Community Partnership Project (EPY) will
continue to provide opportunities for neighborhoods to devise solutions to
change factors that contribute to substance abuse, open up ways youth may
participate in the public problem solving process, coordinate shared work among
city departments and community based agencies, and provide support for parent
organizations, during its third year.
The EPY project is designed to target services to eight neighborhoods : Bayview
Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, Chinatown, Mission, Visitacion Valley, Tenderloin,
Western Addition, and the Ocean vie w-Merced-Inglside(OMI).
With the awarding of the grant to the City and County of San Francisco to the
Neighborhood in Transition- A Multi- Cultural Partnership Project (NIT- AMP)
in October 1991, the Empowering Parents and Youth Project now provided an
array of partnership prevention activities in seventeen neighborhoods.
The key significant program are:
•The Mayor's Youth Forum (MYF), equips neighborhood youth
with leadership and empowerment skills to assist in the problem solving process
of the City and the neighborhoods. The Mayor's Youth Forum, now has
expanded its capacity to develop neighborhood youth forums and councils.
•The creative and urgent efforts of neighbors, parents, and youth, in a
variety of neighborhood based strategies and actions, through our Neighborhood
Empowerment Program (NEP).
• The Mayor's Drug Prevention Task Force, is composed of twenty
. citizens appointed by the Mayor to oversee the project and provide policy
recommendations regarding substance abuse prevention.
47
In September of 1992, the Mayor officially appointed a new Mayor's Drug
Prevention Task Force. The twenty member citizen group reflects the
cultural diversity of the City and provides a wealth of experiences in
neighborhoods, youth work and prevention activities. The new task force
will provide annual policy recommendations to the mayor, review related
policy papers, and to support the efforts of the Community Partnership
program.
•The development of the Neighborhoods In Transition -A Multi-Cultural
Partnership( NTT-AMP) now expands our community partnership efforts to nine
additional neighborhoods: Hayes Valley, Diamond Heights/Glen Park, Bernal
Heights, Haight, Richmond, Sunset, Japan town, North Beach, and South of
Market. The project is administered by the Japanese Community Youth Council.
The nine new neighborhoods represent an important trend of the future;
the cultural diversity of each neighborhood re-frames the way citizens
must work and plan together. While in the past, these nine
neighborhoods, represented one or two dominant ethnic/ racial
populations, the challenge for the NIT- AMP program is to bring these
changing neighborhoods of many cultures together to identify and solve
common problems around substance abuse.
•To improve city wide planning and coordination, the coordination of
Community Partnership efforts with the County Health Department's
Community Substance Abuse Services Division, to develop a County-wide
Master Plan Process mandated by the State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division.
UR
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Items 11 and 12 -Files 172-92-15 and 97-92-61
Note: These items were continued at the November 18, 1992 Recessed
Finance Committee Meeting.
Departments: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Items: File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following
provisions:
(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement
of purchase and sale for real estate (including certain indemnities and
the release of the seller contained therein);
(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase for sale of
real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain indemnities contained
therein); (c) a trust agreement (including certain indemnities contained
therein); and (d) an official statement;
(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting bids in
connection with the City and County of San Francisco Certificates of
Participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 1993;
(4) Authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged
and to submit budgets for approval;
(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents reasonably
necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of the Certificates of
Participation; and
(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in
connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street
property.
File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit,
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street.
Location: 1660 Mission Street
Purpose of
Purchase: To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire
Department permit processes at a single location.
Seller: Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to
oversee the asset
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
49
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Developer:
No. of Sq. Ft:
Total Cost
Source of Funds:
Description:
The Derringer Group
97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet
$5,700,000
($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11
regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant
improvements)
Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt
service for Certificates of Participation
Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits;
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building
Inspection.
The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core
and shell condition in mid- 1991 and is a six-story steel frame
office building with a one level subterranean garage.
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which
will be used for parking.
The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation.
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The
investors would receive a return on their investment through
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation.
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
50
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of
Participation.
To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following
categories of fees:
(a) Plan Review Fees;
(b) Building Code Fees;
(c) Public Works fees;
(d) Planning Code fees;
(e) A(lministrative Code fees.
All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as
follows:
(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through
June 30, 1995;
(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
1995 through June 30, 2000; and
(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1,
2000 through June 30, 2005.
Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire.
The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following
dollar costs:
(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects,
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second
period; and $9.82 in the third period;
(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000.
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the
third period;
(3) .1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects,
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the
second period; and $430.90 in the third period.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
51
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees
are consistent with the fees noted above.
Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr.
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six
floors, which would be used as follows:
First Floor:
to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public
parking; and public information booths where seven
employees would provide information regarding the status of
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code
information, etc.
Second Floor:
to include the permit center and the construction services
center.
Third and Fourth Floor:
to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and
code enforcement sections, including all inspectors.
Fifth Floor:
to include the administrative offices for the various applicable
departments.
Sixth Floor:
to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.)
2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now
occupying the four different locations noted in the description
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr.
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
52
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms,
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place.
3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop."
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California,
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However,
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency
that would be achieved in San Francisco. Mr. Litchfield
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most
permit applicants who have been in contact with the
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time.
However, there is no documentation as to whether such
applicants, who have been in contact with the various
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for
large construction projects.
4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new
building would accommodate any growth in permit requests
in future years, Mr. Litchfield reports.
5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit
application process would be restructured. Instead of
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with
permit processors to review applications in person. This new
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports.
6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
53
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping
employees who provide information to the public. Mr.
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit
processing functions are located on a number of different
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has
not been provided with any documentation regarding
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services
Center.
7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister,
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall,
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises.
8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate
Harrison of the Superior Court advises.
9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase,
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports.
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of
the State Code.
10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
54
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing.
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account.
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000.
11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million.
The estimated $3.5 million in tenant improvements would be
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million,
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which
would be repaid from the fee surcharges.
12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The
cost of such improvements would vary based on the
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr.
DeLucchi.
13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price,
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
55
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
related financing institutions invested approximately $17
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street.
14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports.
15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed
building purchase.
16. The CAO has introduced an Amendment of the Whole for
the proposed ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the
CAO to negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to
an underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless
the market changes significantly over the next few months.
Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports
documenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15)
(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
56
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 13 . File 170-92-12
Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Item: Resolution declaring the official intent of the City and County
of San Francisco to reimburse funds to itself from proceeds of
taxable or tax-exempt indebtedness (bonds) for certain
expenditures (bond administration expenditures) incurred
before the bonds are sold in connection with 1) providing
loans for the seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry
buildings devoted to affordable housing and to market-rate
residential, commercial and institutional uses and 2) the
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department
facilities. (The CAO will introduce an Amendment of the
Whole to delete the first application, number 1, above,
pertaining to loans for seismic strengthening of unreinforced
masonry buildings. The description below pertains only to the
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department
facilities.)
Description: In November, 1992 the citizens of San Francisco approved a
$40.8 million General Obligation Bond measure (Proposition
C). The $40.8 million includes $40.0 million for the
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department facilities
including seismic strengthening, asbestos abatement,
disabled access and separate bathroom and changing areas
for male and female firefighters and $800,000 for bond
administration costs incurred by the City Attorney and the
Chief Administrative Officer.
Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office reports that
the $40.8 million in bonds for the Fire Department will be sold
in April, 1993. Ms Wagner-Lockwood will make an estimate
of bond administration costs when bond council is selected
and will request a supplemental appropriation ordinance at
that time. The funds obtained with the supplemental
appropriation for up-front bond administration costs would
be reimbursed from the bond proceeds when the bonds are
sold.
Chief James Lynch of the Fire Department indicates that
there are no funds in the Fire Department's 1992-93 budget
that can be used for bond administration costs. Therefore,
any up-front funds must be appropriated by supplemental
appropriation and reimbursed from bond proceeds.
U. S. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that the
City must declare its official intent to reimburse itself for any
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
57
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
expenditures that are to be financed by the proceeds of bonds
but are incurred before the bonds have been sold.
Comments: The proposed resolution declaring the City's official intent to
reimburse itself does not bind the City to make any
expenditure, incur any indebtedness or proceed with any
capital projects.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
58
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 14 - File 68-92-11
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Mayor
Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of
San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend funds in the
amount of $1,062,500 in Grant Year One (actually 17 months,
from October 1, 1992 through February 28, 1994)* and $750,000
in each subsequent year through September 29, 1997,**
including indirect costs in the amount of two percent of the
total grant award, or $21,250 in year one and $15,000 each
year thereafter, made available through the Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development
for a project entitled "San Francisco Gang Prevention
Project," and agreeing to provide in-kind match in the
amount of $459,207; providing for ratification of action
previously taken.
$62,500 per month, or $1,062,500 for the 17 month Grant Year
One, beginning October 1, 1992 and ending February 28, 1994,
and $750,000 each year ($62,500 per month) for four years
thereafter. The total five year and five month grant amount
would be $4,062,500.
Five years, five months total, beginning October 1, 1992
through February 28, 1998 (65 months)
Federal Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Human Development
San Francisco Gang Prevention Project
The Department and Health and Human Services anticipates changing the fiscal year for the
proposed grant from an October through September fiscal year to a March through February fiscal
year. Therefore, the first fiscal year of the proposed grant would actually include 17 months, from
October 1, 1992 (the start date of the old fiscal year schedule) to February 28, 1994 (the end date of the
next new fiscal year schedule). The total grant amount for the 17 month period would be $1,062,500,
or $62,500 per month, the same monthly amount as the ensuing four years of $750,000 per year, or
$62,500 per month.
The proposed grant would authorize the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend funds through
September 29, 1997. However, according to Mr. Patrick Lynch of the Mayor's Office, the grant
period for the proposed grant would end February 28, 1998. Therefore, the title of the proposed grant
should be amended to authorize the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend funds through February
28, 1998.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
59
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Description:
Budget:
The purpose of the San Francisco Gang Prevention Project,
which began in 1989, is to develop, implement and evaluate a
comprehensive program to prevent children and youth from
becoming involved in gangs or drugs, and to redirect young
people who are already participating in gang- or drug-related
activities.
The proposed project would provide coordinated services,
including: (1) community-based street outreach and case
management; (2) gang and drug prevention education in
schools and neighborhood centers; (3) training in family
communication, youth leadership and gang negotiation
skills; and (4) expanded recreational and social activities for
targetted youth. These efforts, instituted by a consortium of
community-based organizations, would be coordinated by the
Mayor's Office.
The following budget includes a 17 month period, from
October, 1992 to February, 1994. The proposed budget for the
ensuing four years would be equal to 12 /i7 of this proposed
budget, since this budget is for 17 months and those budgets
would be for 12 months.
Federal Citv Match Total
Personnel
Project Director
Project Coordinator
Project Staff Assistant
Administrative Clerk
Subtotal Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Fica
Cal. Health
Retirement
Subtotal Fringe Benefits
Travel (see Comment 3)
Office Supplies
Contractual fcee detail, below)
Bayview-Hunter's Point Foundation
Chinatown Youth Center
Ella Hill Hutch Community Center
O.M.I. Pilgrim Community Center
Potrero Hill Neighborhood House
Real Alternatives Program Inc.
$120,417
$120,417
$54,035
54,035
41,007
41,007
fl
34.000
34,000
$95,042
$154,417
$249,459
$1,352
$1,352
2,125
2,125
7.084
Q
7.084
$10,561
$10561
$8,500
$7,084
$15,584
$7,551
$7,084
$14,635
$81,464
$24,821
$106,285
81,464
24,821
106285
81,464
24,821
106285
81,464
24321
106285
81,464
24,821
106285
81,464
24,821
106285
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
60
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Contractual
Services Detail:
F ed er al Citv Match Total
Visitacion Valley Community Center
Evaluation Component
S.F. Safety Awareness for Everyone
Community Board Program Inc.
Subtotal Contractual Services
$81,464
63,750
50,433
$719,846
$24,821
14,167
lfl£25
$198,539
$10635
63,750
64,600
46,040
$918,385
Services Provided bv Citv Departments
Police Dept Wilderness Program
(2 FTEs)
Recreation & Parks Department
(3 FTEs)
Subtotal City Services
Other (see Comment 4)
Indirect Costs (at 2 percent of
total grant)
51,000
85.000
$136,000
63,750
21.250
49,583 100,583
21250
$70,833
21,250
106.250
$206,833
85,000
21250.
Totals
$1,062,500 $459,207 $1,521,707
Contractual Services (17 months')
Seven community based agencies would each
provide two full-time Youth Developers
(approximately $3,126 per position per month x 17
months). These seven agencies would be as
follows:
•Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation $106,285
•Chinatown Youth Center 106,285
•Ella Hill Hutch Community Center 106,285
•O.M.I. Pilgrim Community Center 106,285
•Potrero Hill Neighborhood House 106,285
•Real Alternatives Program, Inc. 106,285
•Visitacion Valley Community Center 106,285
Each organization would establish and continue
Youth Development outreach and case
management strategies; receive referrals from the
Juvenile Probation Department, Prevention/
Diversion Unit, Unified School District, Social
Services and Recreation and Park Departments
and Community Services providers.
The Institute for the Advance Study of Black
Family Life and Culture, Inc. would provide three
professionals to conduct year-end formative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
61
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
evaluations, assist with quarterly reports, develop
and implement case management intake forms,
provide monitoring services and staff, implement
case management intake forms, provide
monitoring services and staff assistance. $63,750
San Francisco Safety Awareness for Everyone
(SAFE) would provide one full-time Staff Education
Specialist to create and maintain a Gang
Prevention Education Curriculum and make gang
awareness presentations to parent and church
groups, neighborhood agencies and other
interested organizations. 64,600
Community Board, Inc. would provide training
and facilitation in family communication skills, as
well as a parent trainer program, conflict
resolution training for youth and outreach workers
and gang prevention, conflict mediation and
negotiation workshops for the consortium
members. 46.040
Total Contractual Services $918,385
Required Match:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
$459,207 for the first 17 months, plus $324,000 per year for the
ensuing four years, for a total of $1,755,207 for 65 months
Two percent of total grant amount, or $21,250 the first year
and $15,000 each year for four years thereafter
1. The Gang Prevention Project has been in place since 1989.
The Gang Prevention Project was previously funded as a pilot
project. Therefore, the first three years of funding were one-
year grants. This year, the Department of Health and
Human Services is funding the Gang Prevention Project for
five years because it has determined that the Project is a
success.
2. In fiscal year 1991-92, the Mayor's Office received $616,522,
or approximately $51,377 per month, for the Gang Prevention
Project. The proposed 65 month grant of $62,500 per month
represents a monthly increase of 21.6 percent over the
previous grant.
3. The grant portion of Travel costs, at $8,500, would support
the Project Director and Project Coordinator to attend at least
two meetings, workshops and/or conferences, as mandated
by the funder.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
62
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Recommendation:
4. The grant portion of Other costs, at $63,750, would include
recreational equipment, intern stipends, telephone, paging
and mobile communications networks (ie, beepers).
5. Mr. Lynch advises that the contractors for the proposed
grant were selected in 1989 based on a competitive bid. The
contracts for the proposed grant would be sole source
renewals. All of the contractors are non-profit organizations.
6. The proposed grant would require a local match of
$459,207, or approximately 43.2 percent of the Federal grant
amount of $1,062,500. This $459,207 has been included in the
FY 1992-93 budgets of various departments, including the
Police Department, the Juvenile Probation Department, and
the Recreation and Parks Department. Mr. Lynch advises
that the local match requirement in ensuing years would
remain approximately 43.2 percent, or $324,000 per year, for a
total of approximately $1,296,000 over four years. This
$1,296,000 would be funded from various departments over
the next four years. The total match for the full 65 month
period of the proposed grant is $1,755,207.
7. Three full-time employees from the Recreation and Park
Department and two full-time employees from the Police
Department would provide services to youth under the
proposed grant. The total cost for these five FTEs would be
$206,833, with the proposed grant providing $136,000, or
approximately 65.8 percent of the total cost, and the
departments providing $70,833, or approximately 34.2 percent
of the total cost. The Mayor's Office advises that if the
proposed grant were reduced or terminated, personnel would
be reduced or terminated accordingly.
8. The Mayor's Office has already applied for the proposed
grant. Therefore, the proposed resolution provides for
ratification of action previously taken.
9. A Disability Access Checklist is in the file.
10. The Mayor's Office has prepared a Summary of Grant
Request Form, which is attached.
Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Mayor to
accept and expend grant funds through February 28, 1998
instead of September 29, 1997 and approve, as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
63
NOU-25-1992 1?= 12 FROM
TO
riMor PEPT off Hff AT.TH & HUMAIi .SERVICES
ootact Person MARIA T. CANDAMIL
ddress 33 ° C Street S,W *
"^WASHINGTON D.C. 20201
mount Requested 5
erm: Prom Oct 92
(iHh Commission ___
MAYOR
925204bl h
I Rev. 4/l0/90~|
Division
Scclloo
750,000 PER YEAK
To S ** Z 91
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL
Contact P t ,so„ THOMAS MAYFIELD JR.
Telephone (415) 554-6994
Application Deadline __^___^___^___
Notification Expected '
Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Full Board
ttem Description: Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (aUocation) (augmentation to a)
k^'w'*^ 1 grant in the amount of S 750,000 from (he period of , , m ...to , Sef t. 97 -
a -«™vaC^rr!w«^.rini»!im #.« iS*i»vi»nfe ana divert. \im.j.\n.^u. .
grant in trie amount ol ; from the period of ^ L 7 * j ... 10 ^ Si
iop>n^^. A comprehensive pro-gram Eg pf event and divert
and youth from becoming involved m gangs
.. . - ...; JJ«a «HornativeS
services.
vn™h. through outreach activity. referrals, gtgggg **& > *. V*to "»" «■" »
recreational program
ri. Outeomes/Obltetlves: . .
Avoid participation in gang/drug activity
Participation in more positive acblvUl^
'. Effects of Reduction or Termination of -These Funds:
Total 'shutdown o f program and B t ulf Uu- ough th e co^nUy ,
'._ Financial Information:
«■- Col-, A
Two Yean Ajo
Jraat Amount ■ 822^029
ersonnel ' 129,682
iqulpmeut 1-6,000
:oatract Svc. 631,108
Ut. & Supp. 4.800
acUltles/Space ■
Khcr "
odlrect Costs _•
f\. Data Processing
trtm ■■ ! Ma t ■ )
'IT., Pcrsjnnfl
YT CSC
VT CSC
Contractual
Col, J
P«ll Ycat/Orit-
616,522
Col. C
Propottd
1,062,500
~105."$03
B
8677346
" 7T551
Col. D
129, 682
16,000
466, U4U
4,800
63,750
Rtq. Match Approved bv
Jonree(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant:
FOR CSC ' " " " ' ' " ' "
VIII grant funded employed be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How?
VITT. Contrartml S-rvlrx- Open Bid
Sole Source
( i -^* -**m. i- ia fcjaj— tm f 1 1 — Jli ■■ f^-m )
u
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 15 -File 172-92-16
Department: Airport
Item: Resolution approving the "Public Pay Telephone Agreement"
between Pacific Bell and the City and County of San Francisco,
acting by and through its Airports Commission.
Description: The proposed resolution would approve a three year agreement
with three one-year options between Pacific Bell and the City to
install and operate a minimum of 725 pay telephones
throughout the Airport Terminal Building Complex. Pacific Bell
would pay the City $0,018 per passenger (annual total of
enplaned and deplaned passengers) with a minimum annual
guarantee of $600,000 to the Airport.
According to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport, Pacific Bell has
installed and operated pay telephones in the Airport under the
existing agreement since the Airport has had pay telephones
available to the public. However, because of the deregulation of
telecommunications, this is the first time the contract has been
bid. Ms. Gittens reports that Pacific Bell is the only company to
submit a bid.
Comments: 1. The existing agreement between the City and Pacific Bell
from 1990 to the present is based on a percentage of Pacific
Bell's total revenues received from the pay telephones with a
minimum annual guarantee $300,000. Thus, the minimum
annual guarantee of the proposed agreement for the next three
years is 100 percent greater than the minimum annual
guarantee of the previous agreement. According to Ms. Gittens,
in FY 1991-92 Pacific Bell paid the Airport $500,000 to install
and operate 725 pay telephones based on 12 percent of Pacific
Bell's total revenues received from the pay telephones.
2. Ms. Gittens reports that the proposed agreement does not
include the default long distance telephone carrier. Ms. Gittens
advises that the Airport will be issuing the RFP for the contract
for the default long distance carrier within the next month. The
default long distance carrier is the company that would provide
long distance services at the Airport's pay phones when the pay
phone user has not selected a long distance carrier. The current
long distance default carrier is AT&T.
3. Although the proposed agreement would require Pacific Bell to
install and operate 750 pay telephones, these 750 pay
telephones have already been installed by Pacific Bell. The
proposed agreement would require Pacific Bell to continue to
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
65
y~ .
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
provide 750 operating telephones for the duration of the three
year contract.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
66
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 16 - File 173-92-4
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Resolution authorizing the Port of San Francisco to agree to
hold the State of California harmless from all claims arising
from State Lands Commission processing of a dredging
permit.
The Port of San Francisco has applied to the State Lands
Commission for a dredging permit, in order to dredge
(remove debris from) the vicinity of San Francisco's Pier 35
Cruise Terminal. The State Lands Commission is expected
to grant permission for the dredging at a meeting scheduled
for December 14, 1992, using a standard form agreement
which contains an indemnification clause.
The proposed resolution would authorize the Port to hold
harmless the State of California from claims arising from
approval by the State Lands Commission of the dredging
permit for Pier 35.
1. According to Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port, the
agreement with the State Lands Commission (SLC) which
contains the hold harmless clause will be issued at the time
that the dredging permit is issued, and therefore is not
available in advance for review by the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Sanchez states that the agreement containing the hold
harmless clause is a standard agreement, and the hold
harmless clause is expected to be identical to the hold
harmless clause contained in the dredging permit issued to
the Port by the SLC in 1991. The text of the hold harmless
clause used in 1991 is as follows:
It is agreed that [the Port] shall indemnify, save
harmless, and at the option of the State of
California, defend said State, its officers, agents, and
employees, against any and all claims, demands,
causes of action, or liability of any kind which may
be asserted against or imposed upon the State of
California or any of its officers, agents, or employees,
by any third person or entity, arising out of or
connected with the issuance of this permit,
operations hereunder, or the use by [the Port or the
Port's] agents, employees, or contractors, of the
above-described lands.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
such indemnification shall include any claim,
demand, cause of action, or liability of any kind
asserted against or impounded upon the State of
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
67
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Recommendation:
California or any of its officers, agents or employees,
arising out of or connected with any alleged or actual
violation by [the Port or the Port's] agents,
employees or contractors of the property or
contractual rights of any third persons or entity. It
is agreed that [the Port] shall, at the option of the
[State Lands] Commission, procure and maintain
liability insurance for the benefit of the State in an
amount satisfactory to the Commission.
2. The Budget Analyst notes that the hold harmless clause
described above differs from that which would be
authorized by the proposed resolution. The clause which
now appears in the proposed resolution is more limited than
the clause cited above, since it refers only to "claims and
losses," and not to "demands, causes of action, or liability of
any kind" as cited above, and would limit the State's
liability to claims brought by "individuals, firms, or
corporations supplying work services or supplies," rather
than by "any third person or entity," as cited above. Ms.
Sanchez states that she has confirmed that the hold
harmless clause presented above is the language expected
to be used in the SLC standard agreement, and the text of
the proposed resolution should therefore be amended
accordingly.
3. Ms. Sanchez states that the SLC will not issue the
dredging permit at its next meeting of December 14, 1992
without the Board of Supervisors' authorization to enter
into the standard agreement which contains the hold
harmless clause. Approval of the proposed resolution by the
Board of Supervisors would be needed on December 7, 1992
in order for the dredging permit to be issued on December
14. Ms. Sanchez states that dredging of Pier 35 is expected
to take only 2-3 days, but that expeditious dredging is
needed in order to ensure that the dredging does not
interfere with the Bay herring season.
1. Amend the proposed resolution by deleting the text of
the hold harmless clause which appears at page 1, line 15
through page 2, line 4 of the proposed resolution, and by
substituting the hold harmless clause quoted at Comment 1
above, in order to reflect the language expected to be used
in the standard agreement used by the State Lands
Commission for the dredging permit.
2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
68
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 17 - File 51-92-3
This item transmits the claims of various City employees for
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty.
Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The Controller
recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claim submitted to the
Controller, and after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the
Controller that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount
certified for payment is fair and reasonable.
Cflmmsnte
1. The employee claims are for the three month period of July, August and
September, 1992.
2. As of the writing of this report, Mr. John Madden of the Controller's
Office advises that the Controller's Office has not completed it's report on the
recommended reimbursements for the employee claims. Mr. Madden advises
that the report will be ready for presentation at the Finance Committee Meeting
on December 2, 1992.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
ftQ
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 18- File 82-92-9
Departments: Real Estate Department
Airports Commission
Item: Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 100 additional noise
easements in the City of South San Francisco for the
Airport's Phase VII Noise Easement Program.
Description: The San Francisco International Airport's Noise Easement
Acquisition Program consists of insulating private
residences and schools in the City of South San Francisco
and other cities that are located near the San Francisco
Airport. The proposed legislation would authorize the
acquisition of 100 additional noise easements in the City of
South San Francisco as part of the Airport's Phase VII
Program.
Once purchased, the noise easements would remain in effect
for 20 years. As consideration for the granting of noise
easements from the property owners to the City, the City
would pay 20 percent of the total construction cost and title
insurance fees to insulate the 100 residences. The cost to the
City would not exceed $250,000, according to the proposed
legislation. This $250,000 has been included in the Airport's
FY 1992-93 budget. The City of South San Francisco would
pay the remaining 80 percent, or $1 million, of the total
construction costs and title insurance fees of approximately
$100 per easement, with funding obtained from Federal grant
funds.
Comments: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the acquisition of
the 100 additional noise easements in the City of South San
Francisco would satisfy the State-mandated noise mitigation
requirements. The Board of Supervisors has previously
approved eight different resolutions to acquire a combined
total of 533 noise easements in the City of South San
Francisco. If the proposed resolution is approved, the City
would have authorized a total of 633 noise easements in the
City of South San Francisco.
2. The City Attorney's Office reports that the purchase of
these noise easements enables the City to comply with State
legal requirements, and eliminates any costs to defend
against noise-related small claims lawsuits filed by the South
San Francisco residents who would benefit from the noise
easements.
Recommendation - Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
70
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 19 -File 65-92-14
Department: Public Utilities Commission
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft and
Revenue/Month:
Annual Revenue:
Utilities & Services:
Term of Lease:
Escalation:
Comments:
Ordinance authorizing lease of Water Department land in
Santa Clara County to the Roman Catholic Bishop of San
Jose.
Pipeline right-of-way of approximately 0.71 acre in Santa
Clara County, parallel to the Bayshore Highway between
Morse Avenue and Weddell Drive, and adjacent to a
community center.
Parking and landscaping adjacent to a community center.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose
Approximately 0.71 acre, or approximately 30,928 square
feet. Initial rent would be $900/month, or approximately
$0.03 per square foot per month.
$10,800 in the first year
The lessee would be responsible for the payment of all
utilities and services, including water, gas, electricity, and
other services delivered to the premises. In addition, the
lessee would be responsible to keep and maintain the
premises in good condition, at its own expense.
January 1, 1993 through December 31, 2002 (10 years); with
four 5-year renewal options.
$3,600/year for the first 5 years, beginning January 1, 1994,
with adjustments in subsequent years based on fair market
value or changes in the Consumer Price Index (see
Comment 3).
1. The premises covered by the proposed lease are part of
the City's pipeline right-of-way used to transport and
distribute water for municipal use. According to the
proposed lease, any and all rights granted to the Roman
Catholic Bishop of San Jose, the lessee, "shall be
subordinate to the City's use of premises" for this purpose.
The proposed lease states that the premises are adjacent to
a community center and may be used solely for the purpose
of parking and landscaping. The General Manager of the
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would have sole
authority to determine whether the actual use complies
BOARD OF SUPER VLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
71
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
with the permitted use. Since the Roman Catholic Bishop of
San Jose, the lessee, would be allowed to construct a
parking lot at the site, the proposed lease contains the
following provisions to protect the City's pipelines:
Construction and Removal of Imnrovements: Any
construction or improvement to the premises must be
approved in advance by the General Manager of the PUC,
who would determine whether or not the proposed
construction would interfere with the City's pipelines. The
lessee could be required to alter or remove, at its own
expense, any property or installation which interfered with
the City's use of the pipelines.
If excavation of the premises by the City is required, the
lessee would be required to pay any costs to remove or
restore any parking or landscaping improvements
damaged by the excavation.
Restrictions on Construction Activities : In order to protect
the City's pipeline, the proposed lease requires the lessee to
exercise "extreme care in the use of tools and equipment,"
expressly prohibits the planting of large trees, and restricts
the type of vehicles and construction equipment which can
be used within 20 feet of the pipeline. In addition, at least 3
feet of soil must be maintained over the City's pipelines at
all times.
Maintenance and Title to Lessee's Improvements : The
lessee would be responsible to maintain and repair any
improvements at its own expense. Upon termination or
expiration of the lease, the City would receive title to any
improvements, additions, or utility installations on the
premises, or could require their removal at the lessee's
expense.
Access bv Citv Employees : Employees and representatives
of the City would have the right to enter the premises at any
time, and access is specifically ensured in order to repair
and maintain the pipeline.
Reimbursement for Costs of Repairs: The expense of
maintaining and repairing the City's property, including
the pipelines, would be borne by the City, unless these costs
resulted from the activities of the lessee, its employees,
agents, or contractors.
2. Mr. Alan Lucas of the Water Department states that the
possibility of damage to the City's property as the result of
the lease is extremely remote, since the PUC would be
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
72
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
required to approve in advance the scope and method of any
proposed construction, and a City construction inspector
would be assigned to oversee the construction.
According to Mr. Lucas, the cost of replacing a section of
pipe damaged by an impact with construction equipment
would be approximately $200,000. However, this is a
hypothetical case, and actual repair costs, if the City's
pipelines are damaged, could vary depending on the nature
of the damage. Mr. Lucas states that the City Attorney has
confirmed that the lessee would be responsible under the
proposed lease for the cost of repairing any damage caused
by the lessee's use of the premises.
3. The term of the lease would be ten years, with four
options to renew the lease for 5 years, for a maximum
renewal option of 20 years. Rent in the first year would be
$900 per month, or $10,800 per year, with annual increases
of $3,600 in the 2nd through 5th years. Thus, annual rent
in the first 5 years, beginning January 1, 1993, would be as
follows:
Year
Annual Rent
Monthlv Rent
1993
$10,800
$ 900
1994
14,400
1,200
1995
18,000
1,500
1996
21,600
1300
1997
25,200
2,100
In the alternative, the lessee would be given the option of
paying $70,013 in advance for the first 5 years, which the
PUC reports is equal to a constant monthly rent of $1,500
over 5 years, discounted at 9 percent. In other words, the
PUC has calculated that $70,013 paid in advance is equal to
the value of a monthly payment of $1,500 over 5 years
($90,000), because of the interest which can be earned at 9
percent on the advance payment.
At the request of either party, the annual rent would be re-
assessed, based on fair market value, prior to
commencement of the 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, and 26th years of
the lease. Annual increases in all other years after the 5th
year, and at any 5 year interval in which re-assessment
based on fair market value is not performed, would be
proportional to the increase in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) published by the Federal Government. However, the
annual rent increase based on the CPI could not exceed 10
percent, even if the CPI increased by more than 10 percent.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
73
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 20 - File 106-92-2
Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee at the November
17, 1992 meeting of the Administration and Oversight Committee,
because of its fiscal impact.
1. The proposed resolution would authorize the Civil Services Commission
to expend budgeted funds in the amount of $89,500 to conduct the salary survey for
salary standardization for fiscal year 1993-94.
2. Salary Standardization Procedure
The Civil Service salary standardization procedure with respect to
Miscellaneous positions operates under the general guidelines of Section 8.401 of
the City Charter. This Section provides that City and County Miscellaneous
employees be paid "...in accord with the generally prevailing rates of wages for
like service and working conditions in private employment or in other comparable
governmental organizations in this state." Section 8.407 applies to all employees
covered by Section 8.401 and provides a set procedure and a mathematical formula
by which wages for those employees will be set. The procedure requires that data
on wages paid for comparable employment be collected from five Bay Area
counties (Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa), from the
ten most populous cities in those counties, from other public jurisdictions in the
Bay Area (including the State and Federal governments), and from the private
sector. Should Civil Service staff determine that insufficient data exist, out-of-Bay
Area data may be acquired, provided that the jurisdiction surveyed employs 3,000
or more persons.
Section 8.407 provides the basis for the wage and salary survey conducted to
establish wage rates for Miscellaneous City and County employees. The survey is
based on "benchmark" classes which are considered to be key classes within
occupational groupings. Survey data on wages and salaries are collected for
positions judged comparable to the benchmark classes in other jurisdictions and
in the private sector. If the prevailing wage, as determined by the survey, is above
the wage paid by the City and County, a wage increase for the affected class is
warranted; if the prevailing wage is below that paid by the City and County, no
wage increase is warranted. In general, if the Civil Service Commission
recommends a benchmark class for an increase, all classes tied to the benchmark
class will be recommended for a corresponding increase; if the benchmark class
is not recommended for an increase, none of the classes tied to that benchmark
class will be recommended for a wage increase.
Subsequent to releasing the preliminary salary survey, notices are
distributed to employees and employee groups regarding the procedure for
requesting adjustments to the recommendations. These internal adjustment
requests are analyzed by the Civil Service Commission. Where appropriate,
internal salary adjustments over those indicated by the survey are incorporated
into the salary recommendations. The amended recommendations are made
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
74
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
available at a public hearing after which they are submitted to the Board of
Supervisors.
The Commission updates the salary survey each year in an effort to comply
with the Charter's provision (contained in Section 8.407) that salaries be set in
accordance with the "prevailing rates" in other jurisdictions. The Charter does
not require the survey update. For purposes of setting the salaries for San
Francisco employees, however, the Civil Service Commission has defined
"prevailing rate" as that rate effective July 1 of the corresponding fiscal year in
other jurisdictions. With this definition, the preliminary survey must be updated
after the July 1 salaries in other jurisdictions have been determined. In a letter of
opinion dated February 16, 1977, the City Attorney concurred with the concept of
using July 1 salaries as the "prevailing rate" for purposes of setting San
Francisco salaries.
3. Charter Section 8.401 governs in part the method of setting salaries for
positions within the City and County service and provides the following:
"Not later than January 15th, 1944 and every five years thereafter and
more often if in the judgement of the Civil Service Commission or the
Board of Supervisors economic conditions have changed to the extent
that revision of existing schedules may be warranted in order to
reflect current prevailing conditions, the Civil Service Commission
shall prepare and submit to the Board of Supervisors a schedule of
compensation as in this section provided."
4. The following is a tabulation of general increases in salaries since the
updated salary survey for fiscal year 1992-93 in the majority of the public
jurisdictions from which the Civil Service Commission collect salary data under
the provisions of the Charter:
Public Jurisdictions
Salary Increases Since March of 1992
Marin County 5.0%
Contra Costa County 3.0%
Alameda County 4.0%
Santa Clara County 0.0%
San Mateo County 3.0%
State of California 0.0%
City of San Jose 5.0%
City of Oakland 4.0%
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
75
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has reported an approximate average 3.5
percent annual increase in wages in private employment in the greater Bay Area
during the past year through June of 1992.
5. Mr. Pat Finney of the Civil Service Commission estimates that the above
increases since March of 1992 would result in increases for the City's
Miscellaneous employees of approximately one to two percent. However,
historically, the results of the final salary survey, released in March of each year,
indicate that the actual percentage increase is significantly more than the
percentage estimate resulting from the preliminary survey. The Civil Service
Commission found that a review of the tabulation of Bay Area salary increases
and BLS certifications disclosed that increases in salaries in other jurisdiction
are sufficiently significant to warrant a salary survey of public jurisdictions and
private employment in order to make salary recommendations for fiscal year
1993-94.
1. This will be the eleventh year in which the private sector portion of the
salary survey will be provided by contract through the State Personnel Board with
the Joint Powers Agency consisting of the City of Anaheim, Hayward Unified
School District, County of Sacramento, Sacramento Utilities District, and the
County of Sonoma. (Charter Sections 8.401 and 8.407 require the Commission to
collect such data from "recognized governmental Bay Area salary and wage
surveys of private employers...")
Commission staff report that the cost of the contract with the Joint Powers
Agency will be $87,000 including a salary survey update which may be done later
in the fiscal year. The Commission's 1992-93 budget for all Charter-required
surveys, including uniformed members of the Police and Fire Departments,
Registered Nurses and Transit Operators as well as Miscellaneous employees,
totals $89,500. The remaining funds in the amount of $2,500 would be used to staff
field work, mail questionnaires, telephone use including long distance, printed
forms and salary survey books, additional printing costs associated with the
salary standardization ordinances and follow-up contacts with surveyed agencies.
2. The Civil Service Commission anticipates that when the final survey is
completed, the overall percentage increase for FY 1993-94 for Miscellaneous
employees will be less than four percent. Thus, the total estimated cost of Salary
Standardization in FY 1993-94 for Miscellaneous employees would be
approximately $44.6 million, including $32.6 million in General Fund costs.
3. In past years the Civil Service Commission staff has conducted two
salary surveys each year to set salaries for Miscellaneous employees. A
preliminary survey is prepared by staff and reported to the Commission in
January of each year. In March the final survey is conducted by staff updating all
private and public data in the preliminary survey. This report is forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors, and upon adoption, becomes the basis for the following
fiscal year's Salary Standardization Ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
76
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
However, to save time and avoid unnecessary duplication, this year the
Civil Service Commission is proposing to conduct a single survey. Both the Budget
Analyst's management audit and the Controller's performance audit staff have
recommended a single survey as a more efficient use of time and personnel. A
single survey would result in a larger response to the salary survey from other
public sector agencies because they would not be asked for the same information
twice in a two-month period.
4. This item was approved by the Administration and Oversight Committee
on November 17, 1992 and transferred to the Finance Committee because of its
fiscal impact.
Bfigaamgadajfon
Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
77
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Item 21 -File 106-92-3
Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee at the November 17,
1992 rescheduled meeting of the Administration and Oversight Committee
because of its fiscal impact.
Department Civil Service Commission
Item: Resolution fixing highest generally prevailing wage rates, for
private employment on public contracts.
Description: The proposed resolution would determine that the highest
general prevailing rate of wages paid for private employment
on City contracts to various craft workers is as set forth in (a)
the General Prevailing Wage Determination survey made by
the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California
for all craft workers except Garage Attendants and (b) the
agreement between Parking Employers and Teamster
Automotive Employees, Local 665 for Garage Attendants.
Charter Section 7.204 requires that contracts for public works
or improvement involving construction or fabrication shall
provide for the payment of the highest prevailing wage rates
to all persons performing labor under such contracts.
Section 6.37 of the City's Administrative Code gives authority
to the Board of Supervisors to fix and determine the highest
general prevailing wage rates. To assist the Board in the
determination of these wage rates, the Civil Service
Commission is required to furnish, on an annual basis, data
as to the highest general prevailing rate of wages of the
various crafts and types of labor, including wages paid on
holidays and for overtime, as paid by private employers in the
City. In determining these wage rates, the Board of
Supervisors is not limited to the data submitted by the Civil
Service Commission but may consider such other
information on the subject as it may deem proper.
The Civil Service Commission has determined that the
General Prevailing Wage Determination made by the State of
California's Director of Industrial Relations represents the
highest prevailing rates of wages for various craft workers
except for Garage Attendants, such as those operating and
maintaining City-owned parking lots and garages, because
the State's General Prevailing Wage Determination survey
does not include any data for Garage Attendants. Therefore,
as an alternative, the Civil Service Commission used the
agreement between Parking Employers and the Teamsters
Automotive Employees, Local 665 as the benchmark for the
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
78
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
highest general prevailing wage for Garage Attendants.
According to the current three year agreement for the period
beginning December 1, 1989, the highest hourly rate was
$11.50 per hour as of December 1, 1989,and the current rate is
$12.25 as of December 1, 1991. Negotiations are currently in
progress for rates to be effective December 1, 1992.
Comments: 1. Mr. Pat Finney of the Civil Service Commission reports
that because the proposed resolution would apply to at least
250 different classifications, the Civil Service Commission
has not estimated the average increase or decrease in wage
rates for all of these positions. However, Mr. Finney notes
that a copy of the report which specifies the increase or
decrease in prevailing wage rates for each various craft
worker position is in the Board of Supervisors file. Mr.
Finney estimates that the overall increase in wage rates for
all various craft worker positions combined would be less
than four percent.
As noted above, any City department which enters into a
contract is required by Charter Section 7.204 to pay the
highest generally prevailing wage rate for labor performed
under the contract. While the Civil Service Commission
provides City Departments with annual highest generally
prevailing wage rates data, the Civil Service Commission
does not actively monitor wage rates paid under City
contracts.
2. Mr. Geoff Rothman of the Civil Service Commission
reports that the majority of public construction contracts
which the proposed resolution would apply to are contracts in
the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Public
Utilities Commission. However, the proposed resolution
would also apply to public construction contracts in various
City departments such as the Airport, the Port or the Water
Department. Mr. Lin Lwin of the DPW Contract Office
reports that the majority of DPW's public construction
contracts are in the DPW's Bureau of Architecture, the
Bureau of Engineering and the Clean Water Program. Mr.
Lwin indicates that in FY 1991-92, the DPW public
construction contracts totalled approximately $80 million.
Mr. Lwin reports that the percentage of the total contract cost
which would be attributable to labor would depend upon the
type of construction contract. For instance, Mr. Lwin
indicated that a paving contract would have a greater
percentage in material costs versus a sewer repair job which
would have a higher percentage labor costs. Assuming that
the overall increase in wage rates for all various craft worker
BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
79
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
positions combined is up to four percent, and assuming a
minimum of 50 percent of the contract is attributable to labor
costs, the proposed increase in cost to the City for DPW
construction contracts would be as follows:
Estimated Potential
Cost of Labor Cost of Labor Additional
FY 91-92 FY 92-93 Cost to the Citv
DPW Construction Contracts $40 million $41.6 million $1.6 million
3. Mr. Roland Horn of the PUC's Contract Compliance Office
reports that the PUC Project Managers for public
construction contracts monitor whether contractors and sub-
contractors are paying prevailing wages. However, Mr. Horn
was unable to readily provide information regarding the total
amount of public construction contracts which the PUC
entered into for FY 1992-93 because of the large number of
contracts which the PUC administers. In addition, Mr. Horn
indicated that the amount of each contract which would be
attributable to labor would vary, and would require an
examination of each individual contract.
4. Mr. Kevin Hagerty of the Department of Parking and
Traffic reports that the City currently has 12 five-year leases
for parking lots or garages in which the City receives a
percentage of gross revenues after parking taxes. Mr.
Hagerty explains that any increases in operating expenses,
due to increases in prevailing wages, would only affect the
operators, since the City receives a percentage of gross
revenues. Mr. Hagerty also reports that there are five non-
profit garages in the City, in which operators would pass
increased labor costs to the City, because the City receives a
percentage of gross revenue less operating expenses.
However, Mr. Hagerty notes that the operators of these five
non-profit garages are union operators, so it is likely that any
decrease in net revenues which the City will receive has
already been reflected in the Department's FY 1992-93 budget.
Mr. Hagerty explains it would be difficult to estimate any
future increase in costs to the City for either the leased or
non-profit parking lots or garages.
5. Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office reports
that the Board of Supervisors is required to approve the
highest generally prevailing wage rates paid for private
employment under public contracts. As noted above, the
Board of Supervisors may consider other information on the
subject which would fix the highest generally prevailing
wage rates other than the survey which is transmitted by the
Civil Service Commission. However, Mr. Delventhal reports
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
80
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
that this means that the Board may be provided with other
data which indicates what the highest generally prevailing
wage rates are, but the Board still must fix these wage rates.
4. This item was approved by the Administration and Oversight
Committee on November 17, 1992 and transferred to the Finance
Committee because of its fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
■** M^mo to Finance Committee
. December 2, 1992
Item ??- File 260-92-1
Note: This item was continued at the November 18, 1992 Finance Committee
meeting.
Item: Resolution urging the transfer of two City remittance
banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging the
transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank
of America, urging that Bank of America not be used for the
City's proposed direct payroll deposit program, and urging
all officers and employees of the City and County, when
given the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial
institution for the City, to consider the use of financial
institutions other than the Bank of America.
Description:
The Bank of America has recently reinstated its corporate
donations to the Boy Scouts of America. In the past, the
Boy Scouts of America has announced a policy to deny
membership to homosexual persons.
The proposed resolution contains a finding that, although
the Bank of America has stated that the Boy Scouts of
America no longer discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation, a contrary public record exists to indicate that,
in fact, the Boy Scouts of America does chsmminate on the
basis of sexual orientation.
The proposed resolution states that the actions of the Bank
of America in providing financial support to the Boy Scouts
of America is inconsistent with the City's non-
discrimination policies and with its policy not to do business
with entities whose policies foster and encourage
discrimination against any of the residents of San
Francisco.
Therefore, the proposed resolution urges the following:
• That two City remittance banking accounts be
transferred from the Bank of America.
• That the City's revolving bank accounts be transferred
from the Bank of America.
• That the Bank of America not be used for the City's
proposed direct payroll deposit program.
• That all officers and employees of the City and County
consider the use of financial institutions other than the
Bank of America to conduct City business.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
82
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Comments:
1. According to the City Treasurer, Ms. Mary Callanan, the
City's two remittance accounts cited in the proposed
resolution consist of two lock-box remittance accounts
which were recently transferred to the Bank of America
from another financial institution. Ms. Callanan states
that these two lock-box remittance accounts are among
three such accounts for which the City is currently
soliciting competitive bids from financial institutions.
A lock-box account involves the remittance of payments to
the City of San Francisco through a post office box, which is
attended by the financial institution to which the deposits
are made. This system eliminates the need for preh'minary
processing by City employees and permits receipts to be
expeditiously deposited to the City's accounts.
2. The proposed resolution also urges the transfer of the
City's revolving bank accounts. According to the
Treasurer's report to the Board of Supervisors of September
18, 1992, City departments maintain approximately 85
separate checking accounts, of which 25 are with the Bank
of America. The report estimates that these 25 checking
accounts had a combined balance in September 1992 of
$615,100. The Treasurer's list of these 25 accounts is
attached to this report.
Ms. Callanan states that departments exercise their
discretion in selecting a bank for any revolving accounts
which are under their control. Ms. Callanan states that
revolving accounts which are held with the Bank of
America tend to be less costly to the departments, since the
fees for these accounts can be paid from the interest on the
City's large compensation account with the Bank of
America (see Comment 3).
3. According to the Treasurer's September 18, 1992 report,
the City maintains a compensating balance account with
the Bank of America which contains funds transferred to or
from many smaller accounts. The compensating balance
account has an average daily balance of $37.5 million,
according to the Treasurer's report, and the interest which
accrues to the City from this account is used to pay the cost
of numerous banking services, including the fees for the 25
revolving accounts with the Bank of America which are
held by individual City departments.
4. The proposed resolution would also urge that the Bank
of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll
deposit program. The City Controller, Mr. Ed Harrington,
states that although the development of a direct payroll
BOARD O F SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
83
Memo to Finance Committee
December 2, 1992
Recommendation:
deposit program has been considered, efforts will not be
made to implement such a program at least until the spring
or summer of 1993. Mr. Harrington states that the City
would select a bank to provide these services through a
competitive bidding procedure.
Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
0*
Harvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
84
Attachment
Fage i of 2
APPENDIX A-l
CITY DEPARTMENTS
BANK ACCOUNTS
BANK OF AMERICA
(CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS -
SERVICE CHARGES PAID* FOR BY TREASURER'S ANALYSIS PROGRAM)
DEPARTMENT
ADULT PROBATION
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
ASIAN ARTS MUSEUM
CITY ATTORNEY
COMMISSION ON THE AGING
CORONER
PUBLIC LIBRARY
HETCH HETCHY
WATER DEPARTMENT
Damage Claim
Consumer Adjustment
Consumer Deposit
Regular
S.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL
Revolving
BANK
LOCATION
AVERAGE OR
LATEST BALANCE
1 Powell Street
$ 650.
S.F. I. A.
10,000.
800 Irving
1,000.
1 Powell Street
65,000.
1525 Market
300.
345 Montgomery
1525 Market
19,900.
500.
1 Powell Street
5,000.
1 Powell Street
7,500.
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1 Powell Street
1,200.
25,000.
-0-
58,000.
2850 - 24th Street
38,200,
85
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX A-2
CITY DEPARTMENTS
BANK ACCOUNTS
BANK OF AMERICA
, (CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL
DEPARTMENTS - SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY DEPARTMENTS)
DEPARTMENT
AGRICULTURE
Weights & Measures
Farmers Market
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY
& BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICA-
TIONS
LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL
Patients Trust Fund
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Contingency Fund A
Contingency Fund B
Revolving
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER
MUNICIPAL RAILWAY
S.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL
Patient Account
BANK
AVERAGE OR
LOCATION
LATEST BALANCE
2090 Jerrold
$ 400.
2090 Jerroid
200.
2090 Jerrold 2,000,
288 West Portal 32,000,
1 Powell Street 3,000,
1 Powell Street 217,000,
1 Powell Street 7,000,
1 Market Plaza 69,000,
345 Montgomery 250,
4141 Geary 17,000,
2850 - 24th Street 35,000,
Rfi
Sf
aft I w
ALENDAR DOCUMENTS DEPT=
MEETING of DEC 7 1992
. X HNANCE COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC LIBRARY
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
/
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER
2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL
MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate
item.
(a) File 148-92-9 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Director of
Public Works to expend up to $1,044,335 from the State of California for
roadway work on city streets in accordance with the State-Local
Transportation Partnership Program (3rd Cycle) foregoing reimbursement of
indirect costs. (Department of Public Works) Finance
(b) File 146-91-1.2 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department
of Public Health, Community Public Health, Bureau of Health Promotion and
Education, to expend $118,738 of grant funds which excludes indirect costs
from the State Department of Health Services to fund the contractor, Kopell &
Associates and Maureen O'Rorke, Public Relations and Advertising, to
implement a smoke-free environment outreach and media campaign for San
Francisco residents; companion measures to Files 146-91-1, 146-91-1.1 and
146-91-8. (Department of Public Health)
(c) File 146-92-73 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Family
Health Bureau, to accept and expend retroactively a grant of $502,010, which
includes indirect costs in the amount of $7,205, based on twenty percent of
personnel costs, from the Centers for Disease Control for family planning and
HTV research and development services for women; providing for ratification of
action already taken. (Department of Public Health)
(d) File 146-92-74 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, Public Health Programs, Family Health Bureau,
to accept and expend a grant of $566,947, which includes indirect costs in the
amount of $7,068, based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from Centers
for Disease Control, for family planning and HTV clinical and educational
services for women; providing for ratification of action previously taken.
(Department of Public Health)
(e) File 146-92-75 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Family
Health Bureau, to apply for retroactively, accept and expend a grant of
$358,922, which includes indirect administrative costs in the amount of $1,700,
based on one percent of personnel costs, from California Family Planning
Council, Inc., for family planning services; providing for ratification of action
previously taken. (Department of Public Health)
(f) File 147-92-5 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the San
Francisco Public Library to accept and expend $34,530 in funds available from
the United States Department of Education for a Project Read Outreach
Program including and indirect cost of $1,644. (Public Library)
(g) File 147-92-6 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the San
Francisco Public Library to accept and expend $29,033 in funds available from
the United States Department of Education for a Project Read Outreach
Program including and indirect cost of $1,383. (Public Library)
(h) File 140-92-1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution approving the grant funding
from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations in the amount
of $50,725 for a heat stress prevention program in the San Francisco Fire
Department. (Fire Commission)
(i) File 148-92-10 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Director of
Public Works to apply for, accept and expend grant fundings in the amount of
$350,000 from the State of California, Resources Agency for providing
additional environmental enhancement improvements and allowable indirect
costs in The Embarcadero Surface Roadway Project. (Department of Public
Works)
(j) File 148-91-8.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Department of Public Works, in the amount of $325,375, for consultant
services for planning and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway
Replacement Project. (Funds placed on reserve as stated in Budget Analyst's
report dated June 10, 1992, pages 17 through 20). (Also see File 148-91-8,
148-91-8.1 and 148-91-9.) (Department of Public Works)
ACTION:
REGULAR CALENDAR
2. File 65-92-15 . [Giants Candlestick Park Lease Amendment] Ordinance approving a
lease amendment entered into by the Recreation and Park Commission and the San
Francisco Giants, which reduces the City's revenue from the agreement by
approximately $725,000 per year (amount will vary with attendance) through the
year 1997 and assigns the right to further revenues from the agreement to furnish
scoreboard to the Giants during the term of the lease. The City further assumes the
obligations for utilities and maintenance of the playing field at a cost of
approximately $250,000 per season. (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
3. File 65-92-16 . [Sony Scoreboard] Resolution approving an agreement between the
Recreation and Park Commission and the San Francisco Giants granting all rights to
revenues from video advertising on the Sony scoreboard at Candlestick Park during
baseball season to the San Francisco Giants (potential revenues unknown).
(Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
4. File 65-92-17 . [Scoreboard] Resolution approving an amendment to the agreement
to furnish scoreboard between the Recreation and Park Commission and the Sony
Corporation, which enables the City to expand its use of non-video advertising at
Candlestick. (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
5. File 65-92-18 . [Scoreboard Operating Agreement] Resolution approving an
amendment to the Scoreboard Operating Agreement between the Recreation and
Park Commission and the San Francisco Giants, whereby the City will assign its
rights to an operating fee from Sony to the San Francisco Giants. In return, the
Giants will assume the obligation and associated costs of operating the scoreboard
year-round. (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
6. File 65-92-19 . [Parking Lot Agreement] Resolution approving an amendment to the
Candlestick Park parking lot operating agreement between the Recreation and Park
Commission and the San Francisco Giants, which designates the Giants as exclusive
operators of the parking lot during baseball season and which reduces the City's
revenues by approximately $1,150,000 per year. (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
7. File 118-92-9 . [Lead] Ordinance amending Health Code by adding Article 26,
Sections 1601 through 1631 to establish a comprehensive lead hazard reduction
program. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy, Hallinan, Hsieh, Maher, Alioto, Gonzalez,
Achtenberg)
(Transferred from City Services Committee 11/17/92 - Fiscal Impact)
ACTION:
8. File 101-92-15 . Hearing to consider appropriating $93,097, Department of Public
Health, for implementing the Medical Waste Generator Procedure Program.
(Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
9. File 102-92-7 . Hearing to consider amending the Annual Salary Ordinance,
Department of Public Health, by adding two positions (Classification 6122 and
1446). (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION:
10. File 161-92-5.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving an
amendment to the budget of the Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1992-93.
(Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION:
11. File 197-92-5 . Hearing to consider the final recommendations of the Cultural
Affairs Task Force. (Supervisor Hallinan)
(Cont'd from 10/28/92)
ACTION:
12. File 127-92-10 . [Fictitious Business Name Filing Requirement] Ordinance
amending Part HI, Municipal Code, by adding Section 75.1 to require persons filing a
statement of fictitious business name pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof of compliance, including payment of all
appropriate license fees, with all applicable sections of Article 2 of Part in of the
Municipal Code. (Supervisor Kennedy)
ACTION:
13. File 101-92-10.1 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $86,213,304,
Public Library, for capital improvement project (main library and branches), 1988
Library Improvement Bond Program. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION:
14. File 101-92-10.2 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $3,200,241, Public
Library-1988 Library Improvement Bond Program, for capital improvement project
(Public Library Main and branches). RO #92106 (Controller)
ACTION:
15. File 38-92-27 . [Acceptance of Gift] Resolution accepting a gift to the San
Francisco Public Library in the amount of $9,614,568 from the Library Foundation of
San Francisco to fund building enhancements for new Main Library. (Public Library)
ACTION:
16. File 101-92-10 . [Findings - Final Environmental Impact Report] Resolution
incorporating by reference findings made by the San Francisco Library Commission
and the Art Commission and adopting further findings pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act relating to the appropriation of funds for the new Main
Library Project, as analyzed in the San Francisco Main Library Final Environmental
Impact Report, (FEIR) Case No. 90.808E; companion measure to Files 38-92-27,
101-92-10.1, and 101-92-10.2. (Department of Public Works)
ACTION:
17. File 28-92-12 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the
Department of Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the health,
welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary
work to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and
fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. (Department of Public Works)
ACTION:
18. File 97-92-63 . [Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund)
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which
establishes and governs the maintenance of the Cable Television Access
Development and Programming Fund, by providing for the balance of all funds
remaining in the fund at the close of each Fiscal Year to be carried forward and
accumulated in said fund. (Clerk of the Board)
(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
ACTION:
19. File 172-92-18 . [Agreement] Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to execute
hold harmless agreements to be entered into between the City and County of San
Francisco and Jet Skis Manufacturers. (Fire Department)
ACTION:
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROOM 235, CITY HALL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
IMPORTANT
HEARING NOTICE
Govt Documents
Public Library
Civic Center
S-F. CA 94102
D 0133
f
1-
CITY AND COUNTY
<PuBtic LiBrary, (Documents (Dept.
SVFlfal: Jane Hudson
OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
December 7, 1992
///
TO: Finance Committee
////
FROM: Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: December 9, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
DEC 8 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Item la - File 148- 92- 9
Department: Department of Public Works (DPW)
Bureau of Engineering
Item: Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to
expend a State grant for roadway work on City streets in
accordance with the State-Local Transportation Partnership
Program (3rd Cycle) and foregoing reimbursement of
indirect costs.
Amount: Up to $1,044,335
Source of Funds: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Grant Period: June 30, 1992 to June 30, 1995
Description: The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPW to
apply for and accept funds granted under the State-Local
Transportation Partnership Program on a continuing basis
over the ten-year life of the program. Under this program,
the proposed grant funds are made available for various local
transportation street improvement projects under SB 300.
The proposed grant funds would provide monies for the third
year of the ten year program.
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Project Budget:
Project Limits
Type
of Work
Grant
Funds
Local
Funds
Total
Project
Cost
Various Locations,
Street Reconstruction
(25th Street, Douglass
Street, Felton Street)
Reconstruction
$326,039
$1,185,508
$1,511,547
Various Locations,
Pavement Renovation
(8th Ave., 4th., 5th,
10th Ave., Noriega St.,
12th Ave., 17th Ave.,
Clipper St.)
Resurfacing
83,378
303,169
386,547
Sacramento Street
Resurfacing
233,523
849,104
1,082,627
Pacific Street
Resurfacing
58216
211,677
269,893
Broadway Street
Resurfacing
35,375
128,625
164,000
Various Intersections
(a total of 22) -
Traffic Signal Modi-
fication
Signal
Rehabilitation
64,279
233,721
298,000
Various Intersections
(a total of 38) -
Traffic Signal Modi-
fication
Signalization
111,301
404,699
516,000
Various Intersections
(a total of 120) •
Traffic Signal Con-
troller Upgrade
Signalization
132.224
480,776
613,000
Totals
$1,044,335
$3,797,279 $4,841,614
Local Match: $3,797,279 from the Half-Cent Sales Tax revenues will
augment grant funds for these projects.
Indirect Costs: None. The California Departme
nt of Trans
sportation
does not
allow the use of grant funds for indirect costs.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Comments: 1. Mr. Joe Ovadia of the DPW's Bureau of Engineering
reports that all of the above-listed projects would be handled
through contractual services. However, Mr. Ovadia advises
that only two contractors, one for the Traffic Signal
Modification project (Signal Rehabilitation - total cost of
$298,000), and the other for the Traffic Signal Controller
Upgrade project (Signalization - total cost of $613,000), have
thus far been selected.
2. Mr. Ovadia reports that the DPW through its Invitation for
Bids process, has selected King C. Electric, Inc., a certified
MBE firm, to provide the necessary work for the Traffic
Signal Modification project (Signal Rehabilitation). As noted
in the table above, the total amount of the King C. Electric
contract is $298,000, of which $64,279 represents State
Caltrans funds and $233,721 represents local matching
funds. The Purchaser, through its competitive bid process,
has awarded two purchase orders to General Supply
Company, a certified MBE firm, to provide the work required
for the Traffic Signal Controller Upgrade project. The
purchase orders total $646,017, of which $132,224 represents
State Caltrans funds and $513,793 represents local match. As
noted in the table above, the contract for this project was
originally projected to cost $613,000 ($132,224 in Caltrans
funds plus $480,776 in local match), or $33,017 less than the
actual contract amount of $646,017. Mr. Ovadia advises that
the $33,017 shortfall will be paid for by Sales Tax monies.
3. Since the DPW has not, as yet, selected all of the necessary
contractors, $847,832 of the proposed Caltrans funds
($1,044,335 less $64,279 for the Traffic Signal Modification
project, and $132,224 for the Traffic Signal Controller
Upgrade project) should be placed on reserve pending the
selection of the contractors, the identification of the
MBE/WBE status of the contractors and the contract budget
details.
4. According to Mr. Ovadia, the DPW will issue additional
requests for bids for the remaining projects by the Spring of
1993. The DPW anticipates contracting with an additional
four contractors to perform the remaining projects.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
5. Mr. Ovadia reports that thus far under the Transportation
Partnership Program, the State's share of costs have not
exceeded 30 percent of the total costs for the various
transportation street improvement projects. This year, the
State's share of costs represents approximately 21.5 percent
of the total costs. According to Mr. Ovadia, the amount of the
State's share is determined by the amount of State funds set
aside annually for this purpose and the number of local
jurisdictions that apply for these funds.
6. As noted above, the grant has a start-up date of June 30,
1992. However, Mr. Ovadia advises that no expenditures have
been incurred against the proposed grant. Therefore, an
amendment for retroactive authority is not necessary.
7. The DPW has completed a Disability Access Checklist
which is included in the Board of Supervisors file.
8. A Summary of Grant Request Form, as prepared by the
DPW, is attached.
Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to reserve funds totaling
$847,832, as identified in Comment No. 3 above, pending the
selection of contractors, the identification of the MBE/WBE
status of the contractors and the contract budget details.
Approve the proposed resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
4
© 4155548243 DPW • STS & HWYS P02
tttti"No. z ; : - Summary of Grant Rwiiftrt |Rcr.4AQ/9 o]
Grantor State of California, Cal trans Dl*l*toa Bureau -of Engineering - DPW
Contact Pcwa i£ e Shafcemla_ Stct ,„ Project Managemen t
Addrei* 111 Grand Avenue Centaoi t*x*n *2* ° vadla
Oakland, CA. 94623-0660 : Talapfaoaa (415)554-8250
Vmooot Reqowted * 1.04^4.335 AppWmttoB n-uHTn.
lams From 6-30-92 - Q Q-30-93 *f_Hfwtla« • SKpoctad
Jeilti CotmnUstott ' Board of SnperYisors? Finance Committer _
Fall Board _-
-, rum Descrtntfon: Rgqggst to fjpply fori (aocept god fee^ a Cacw) (cmtfmrartm) frnocariap) Ca^maitanqa to a)
** ffnnrfaihaamnnntnfll ^ftA.^V nimtlisperiodof 6-30-92 to 6-30-55
T. Hmtimirri i_—n*_ H— I H * ■ J . i» m ni fcp rJ . n _!__.)
Thle fi ranfc will partly fund conatruction for resurfacing and reconstruction
3f Tl Alta Streets under the State-Local TranaportatlonT Partnership P rug r a »^ C y cle. ~
lo. 3. Also the jsrant ylH f m*d modlf ligation of crafflc signala.JJ
TT. Qntenmaa/Ohf#etfT^
E*t«nde useful life of coadvay by 10 years.
TUcCitr will do leas pa^lnj; projecta.
V. gCnanglnl Tufa-mattem
CqL-A fid- ^ CbL-C C*** B Rg p. Mafch Annrnvcd frr
TwoYouAfc ' Pur Y««EOdx, f iuyu i ul
Stent Amomt 2.674.199 1,641,493 1,044,335
Personnel . ' _ ______
f«r«-lp_.ut ■ , ______
Contract Svc 2 J 874 r 199 1,641.493 1,044,335
Mat & Sirpp. ____________ - - ■_
F*_lLU!__j/Sp*-« . ___ ■
Other ' ___■_______■_ • -
fa<Ur«ct C©ft* __ !
YT, Pnti ?mtivi?
_TT. _____
F/T CSC
P/T CSC
Centrac-usl
Soarc«(t) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC emplojcas working part-time on this grant:
galea Tax . ^
Will grant funded ampley.*. b« retained after tnb grant tarm-oat— 7 If to, Eow.
H/A. Grant aopey is used for contractual aervlctt
•VTTT. C> Btr*rtntI Kerrlcw Op«a Bid x Sole Soarca <■*
5
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item lb -File 146-91-1.2
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Department of Public Health (DPH),
Community Public Health
Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to
expend $118,738 of grant funds, which excludes indirect
costs, from the State Department of Health Services to fund
the contractors, Kopell & Associates and Maureen O'Rorke,
Public Relations and Advertising.
$118,738
January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1992
State Department of Health Services
The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation
(File 146-91-1) authorizing the DPH to apply for, accept and
expend Tobacco Tax monies in the amount of $1,595,327.
However, the Board of Supervisors reduced the expend
authorization by $212,070 from $1,595,327 to $1,383,257,
pending identification of three professional services
contractors. These grant funds were designated to fund
Phase HI of the Comprehensive Tobacco Control Plan. Under
the Plan a total of $652,517 was budgeted for Professional
Services for eleven contracts . At the time DPH submitted its
request for authorization to expend the grant funds, the
Department had identified only eight of the eleven contractors
for a total amount of $440,447 or $212,070 less than the total
budgeted amount of $652,517. The Board of Supervisors has
previously authorized the expenditure of $93,332 of the
$212,070 for one contract (File 146-91-1.1) leaving a balance of
$118,738 for two contracts.
The DPH is now requesting authorization to expend the
remaining $118,738. Ms. Alyonik Hrushow of the DPH,
reports that the Department recently selected Kopell &
Associates and Maureen O'Rorke, Public Relations and
Advertising, to implement smoke-free environment outreach
and media campaigns for San Francisco residents. Maureen
O'Rorke is a certified WBE firm. Kopell & Associates is a
certified MBE/WBE firm. The contracts with these two
agencies are scheduled to commence as soon as contract
certification is completed by the Department, and would have
a term of one year. The two contract budgets totaling $118,738,
are detailed below:
BOARD OF SUPER VISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Maureen OTtorke. Public Relations and Advertising
Personnel
Media Director (196 hrs. @ $100/hr.)
$19,600
Program Assistant (386 hrs. @ $50/hr.)
19.300
Subtotal
$38,900
Operating Expenses
Outreach Booth Design and Production
$4,000
Newspaper Ad Placement
10,000
Newspaper Ad Design, Copy Production
5,000
Promotional Materials
7,000
Press Kits
2,000
Brochures (2,500), Postcards (2,500)
6,000
Bus Advertisements
3,800
Certificates, Awards
200
Miscellaneous Project Expense
400
Subtotal
$38,400
Administrative Overhead
$1,000
Total
$78,300
KopeD and Associates
Personnel:
Project Manager (60 hrs. @ $100/hr.)
Assist. Project Manager (56 hrs. @ $100/hr.)
Program Assistant (27 hrs. @ $50/hr.)
Subtotal
Subcontracts
Three Consultants (458 hrs.® $60/hr.)
Total
$6,000
5,600
1.350
$12,950
$27, 488
$40,438
Comments: 1. As noted above, the grant had an original expiration date of
December 31, 1992. However, Ms. Hrushow advises that the
State, in order to allow the DPH sufficient time to expend the
total grant funds available, has granted an extension of the
grant period to June 30, 1994.
2. The DPH advises that City indirect costs are excluded from
the proposed grant funds because monies for indirect costs
for the City in the amount of $97,103 were previously included
in the original grant amount of $1,595,327.
3. Attached is a "Summary of Grant Request", as prepared by
DPH, for the original grant amount of $1,595,327.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
4. The DPH has submitted Disability Access Checklists for
Maureen O'Rorke, Public Relations and Advertising and
Kopell & Associates, which are included in the Board of
Supervisors file.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
•»0«KMWW>W"
'li<* "Ko.~ HcauJ Commission - Summary of G ninr ; Rpgnf^f | Rev. 4/iQ/90 ~|
' California Department of Health Services
Grantor Tobacco Control Section Division Co mmunity Public Health Svcs.
Contact Person DJLLgflB C- Bal. M.D. Section Bur eau of health Promotion & E ducation
Address 6007 Folsom Blvd., 2nd Fl. Contact Person Alyonik Hrushow
■i^r^nrn, PA <?SRiq Telephone 554-2742 _
Amount Requested S Application Deadline NA
Term: From 1/1/91 To 12/31/92 Notification Expected _J*L.
Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finaoce Committee
Full Board ■*■■
T. Ttem Description; Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a)
(o-dc.f^^. —a) grant in the amount of S from the period of to_:
to provide. services.
TT. Summary: I C—m ftig—jzmMi «■ <*. -< » mt * +am— m rm &mSim n»f .nitn )
AUTHORIZING ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TOBACCO USE CONTROL PLAN AND BUDGET, FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991, TO DECEMBER 31, 1992. -(REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY B OR,
ACCEPT AND EXPEND GRANT FUNDS UNDER THIS PLAN AND BUDGET IS TO BE CONSIDERED ELSEWHERE ON
THE HEALTH COMMISSION AGENDA OF DECEMBER 18, 1990.) ■ " . • " . -
TTT. OutcomesfObfectives:
TV. Effect? Of Reduction or Termination of Three Fnnd<^
V. Financial Information: t •
• - Phase I * Phase
Col. A and TT . -JTTT ^ - Col. D Reo. Match Approved br
Budgeted Two Years Ago P«x Ycat/Orig. Proposed Chxnte
Grant Amount $1,603,952 $1,878,048 _____
Personnel 641,790 907,471
Equipment 1,635 3,250
■Contract Svc. 699,435 652,517
Mat. & Supp. 63,749 67,375
Facilities/Space
Other 127,678 137,775
Indirect Costs 69,665 109,660
VT. Patz Procr^in"
Less carryforward funds
from the Phase I and II grant
. 282,721 .
V IT. Pf-to^nfl Funds available from
F/T CSC this Grant Request $1,595,327
P/T CSC I^ZI^^ ~
ContracTuil
Source(s) of non-jrant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant:
Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so. Ho*
' V HL — Contractual S<t_v J££51 Open Bid" . Sole Source ' < 8 ~ ~--=. ~^i K*=,
9
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item lc - File 146-92-73
Department Department of Public Health (DPH)
Community Public Health Services
Family Health Bureau
Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to
accept and expend retroactively a grant of $502,010, which
includes indirect costs in the amount of $7,205, from the
Centers for Disease Control, and providing for ratification of
action previously taken.
Grant Amount: $502,010
Grant Period: September 30, 1992 to September 29, 1993
Source of Funds: Centers for Disease Control
Project:
Description:
Project Budget
Family Planning and HIV Services for Women (Research
and Support Services)
The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to
apply for these Federal grant funds (File 146-91-58). This is
the second year of funding for a five-year grant program. The
proposed grant funds would be used to continue a research
demonstration model project aimed at HIV risk reduction
and reproduction health promotion for high risk women
(ages 18 to 25). The primary target area for the program
includes the Western Addition and Mission/Visitation Valley
area. The project will be implemented in four public housing
projects, which have not, as yet, been selected. The project
uses volunteer and peer group networks to provide outreach,
information and workshops designed to promote and
reinforce behaviors that will result in HIV risk reduction and
a reduction in unintended pregnancies.
Personnel FTE
Project Director .50
$25,204
Principal Investigator .10
10,820
Subtotal Salaries .60
$36,024
Fringe Benefits
9.726
Subtotal - Personnel
$45,750
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
10
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Contract Budgets:
Operating Expenses
Office Supplies
Travel
Subtotal - Operating Expenses
Indirect Costs
Contract Services
UCSF
Planned Parenthood
Subtotal - Contract Services
Total Project Budget
$1,000
3.500
$212,383
232.172
4,500
7,205
444.555
$502,010
Planned Parenthood
Personnel FTE
Fiscal Coordinator 0.71
$24,029
fflV Coordinator 0.40
16,796
Outreach Workers 3.00
63,000
Outreach Coordinator 1.00
27,500
Subtotal Salaries 5.11
$131,325
Fringe Benefits
23.638
Subtotal - Personnel
$154,963
Outreach and Intervention
Contraceptives
$5,000
Outreach Supplies and Childcare
6,500
Conference/Training
5,000
Local Travel
6,000
Educational Materials
7,500
Postage/Delivery
100
Survey Incentives (350 @ $15.00)
5.250
Subtotal - Outreach and Intervention
35,350
Consultants
13,313
Indirect Costs
28.546
Total
$232,172
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
UCSF
Personnel
FTE
Co-Principal Investigator
0.25
$11,839
Co-Investigator
0.05
7337
Director, Research/Evaluation
0.50
22,620
Fiscal Analyst
0.10
4,680
Sr. Public Admin. Analyst
0.10
4,200
Secretary
1.00
22,836
Respite Project Assistant
1.00
25,215
Data Entry Clerk
,42
5.589
Subtotal Salaries
3.49
$104,816
Fringe Benefits
19.390
Subtotal - Personnel
$124,206
Ooeratinp Expenses
Telephone
2,400
Office Supplies
1,926
Postage
1,000
Copying
1,500
Questionnaire Form
3,000
Incentive Payments
2,000
Computer Mainframe Time
1,000
Rent
21,600
Travel
5.000
Subtotal - Operating Expenses
$39,426
Consultants
1,000
Indirect Cost
47,751
Total
$212,383
Required Match: None
Indirect Costs: $7,205 (20 percent of DPH Salaries)
Comments: 1. Mr. Steve Purser of the DPH reports that since the Federal
grantor has committed to funding this grant program for five
year period, DPH was only required to submit an application
for the first year of funding.
2. The DPH advises that expenditures have been incurred
against the proposed grant funds, As such, the proposed
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken.
3. Attached is a copy of the Summary of Grant Request, as
prepared by the DPH, for this proposed grant.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
4. Disability Access Checklists have been prepared for both
the Planned Parenthood program site and UCSF program
site and are included in the Board of Supervisors file.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
H>?i' QgEca'fsiaD - Sgsinzn n <" ^r? - ' Sugars! . Uw. -c/io.90
"Center for Disease Control CPHS
Division
In-act rcrson Christine Galavotti Section Family Health
U«s 255 East Paces Kerry Rd. Mail "Stop E14 ronljr ,- Ptrion a hon Plir . pr
Atlanta ,UA 30305 Telephone JlgSSfflL.
iiount Requested S 502.010 Application Deadline - ■
rrn,-. Fro™ Sept. 30,1 992^ Sept. 29, 1993 Kollficalie . F , r .. fif<t September 25, ' 1992
-allh Commission 2 Hoard of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Full Doard .
fcjtfm Pf?rr| P tion; Request to (apffljOGS) (accept 2nd expend) a (KffiO (continuation) fcaJaaKOG&foqm^^
p*""^*- 41 grant in the amount of S 502,616 " from the period of 9-30-92 to Fggg
to provide ; services.
f Summyv: lC~***ynJ~~y.~*t^j^^ .^.w, . cj^y. ~~*< -=r~^„ ^^^-u^.) rAKI A
lis is an application for the second year of funding in a full year research demonstration
j id intervention project designed to provide community- level behavioral research and
" iterventions to prevent HIV infection in women and infants. Behavioral research focuse s on
n'mary HIV prevention in women by identifying and describing structrual enviorroental an d
| ;ychosocial factors thought to promote risk reduction in four public housing projects.
j r. Outcomte/Qbifctivfe: Provision of interventions in housing projects at high risk for HIV"
i id Perinatal NIV via unplanned pregnancies will be targeted using a quasi -experimental design
• > compare two different' conditions. Cognitive, behavioral, clinical; structural, and
nviromental changes will be measured and compared between- control/comparison groups. -
\ . EGEaaS "I ^-durtio* or T..rTT,ingtinn of TVe- ^U"(?e: . .'
l *ovision of interventional research and support services for women at high risk for HIV
•ansmission through .community level behavioral research will not be possible. Valuable
r ;search data on a population that .is extremely hard to reach will be lost.
. Financial infnrmelion-
Col. B Col. C • Col. D Rcc M?:rn Aneroid br
?*SI Yiir/OHr. rropoi-i Ciir-i-
kat Aaoeat 770.248 502,010 (268.238 ) '
'-soacd 68,357 45,750 ( 22,607 )
.otisaen;
: OD tract Svc. 685,326 44 4,555 (240,771'
1st. £ Sttp ? . 1,000 1,000 Q
'2 cili tits/So j::
focr 4,800 3,500 (1,300)
Ldircct Cos:s 10.765 7,205 • (3,560)
r>i
CSC
|/T csc 1.2 .60 T60)
|o=:rac:u a i 9.3 9.22 (.08)
Sou.-cc(s) of ase-cras; rs=s:-; for sslzrits of CSC employees -o.-kiss;
Wn\ jrae: J^;c;i t~o)o--.-.i d: r;:2i:;c af; = r ".'cis z'-^'- leraleaies? If
• VT t T . <-„-,.
■?■-:••;) c. -,;-.«:. o ? :: Bid So!: So-.-::
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item Id -File 146-92-74
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
Community Public Health Services
Family Health Bureau
Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to
accept and expend a grant of $566,947, which includes
indirect costs in the amount of $7,068, from the Centers for
Disease Control, and providing for ratification of action
previously taken.
Grant Amount: $566,947
Grant Period: September 30,1992 to September 29,1993
Source of Funds: Centers for Disease Control
Project: Family Planning and HIV Services for Women (Clinical and
Educational Services)
Description: The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to
apply for these Federal grant funds (File 146-91-59). This is
the second year of funding for a five-year grant program. The
proposed grant funds would be used to continue to provide
comprehensive family planning and clinical services,
including HrWSexually Transmitted Disease (STD)
education and prevention to 1100 women at high risk for
STD's and unplanned pregnancies. Services would be
provided to clients at six month intervals at Bayview Hunters
Point Foundation, Dolores Street Community Church,
Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and Glide Memorial Church.
The project would evaluate the success of service
interventions by measuring such outcomes as the clients'
utilization of family planning services, reproductive health
services, STD/HP7 and drug treatment services, and
decreases in unintended pregnancies and STD rates.
Project Budget: DPH Administ r a tion
Personnel FTE
Project Director .50
$25,204
Project Investigator .09
9,738
Family Planning Coordinator .01
337.
Subtotal Salaries .60
$35339
Fringe Benefits
9.542
Subtotal - Personnel
$44,881
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Operating Expenses
Travel (to CDC/Atlanta or as
otherwise designated by CDC -
flights, hotels, meals, &
registration @ $1,000 x 2 people x
3 trips/yr.)
Materials and Supplies
Laboratory Tests
Photocopying
Subtotal - Operating Expenses
Indirect Costs
Contract Services
UCSF Contract
Planned Parenthood Contract
Subtotal
Total Project Budget
$6,000
2,400
4,000
1.100
$113,979
387.519
13,500
7,068
501.498
$566,947
Contract Budgets: Planned Parenthood
Personnel
FTE
Fiscal Coordinator
0.71
$24,029
Finance Director
0.05
2,625
Personnel Manager
0.01
414
Payroll Clerk
0.01
232
Outreach Workers
5.00
105,000
Outreach Coordinator
1.00
27,500
Clerical
0.10
1,756
Subtotal Salaries
6.88
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal - Personnel
Clinic Costs
Initial Visits (600 @ $180)
$108,000
Follow-up Visits (300 @ $109)
32.700
Subtotal
$161,556
29.080
$190,636
140,700
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Outreach
Contraceptives
$5,000
Outreach Supplies
3,000
Local Travel
5,000
Educational Materials
2,000
Postage/Delivery
100
Survey Incentives:
Recruitment (350 @ $5.00)
1,750
Initial (350 @ $10.00)
3,500
Follow-up (210 @ $15.00)
3.150
Subtotal - Outreach
23,500
Indirect Costs
32.683
Total
$387,519
UCSF
Personnel
FTE
Co-Principal Investigator
0.10
$15,674
Research Director
0.50
20,800
Administrative Asst. U
0.25
6,477
Data Entry Clerk
1.00
22.812
Subtotal Salaries
1.85
$65,763
Fringe Benefits
13.594
Subtotal - Personnel
$79357
Administrative Costs
Telephone
$1,000
Computer Mainframe Time
1,000
Forms
1,143
Subtotal - Administrative Costs
3,143
Operating Costs
Rent
$10,000
Travel (CDC - Atlanta)
1,500
Subtotal - Operation
Costs
11,500
Indirect Costs
19,979
Total
$113,979
Required Match: None
Indirect Costs: $7,068 (20 percent of DPH Salaries)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Comments: 1. Mr. Steve Purser of the DPH reports that since the Federal
grantor has committed to funding this grant program for a
five year period, DPH was only required to submit an
application for the first year of funding.
2. The DPH advises that expenditures have been incurred
against the proposed grant funds. As such, the proposed
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken.
3. Attached is a copy of the Summary of Grant Request, as
prepared by the DPH, for this proposed grant.
4. Disability Access Checklists have been prepared for both
the Planned Parenthood program site and the UCSF
program site and are included in the Board of Supervisors
file.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
]±zzi dgECTisasa - Easmizo: of f-^r* 1 B^ga^sl . . I Rev. 4/10.90 J
Centers for Disease Control - Division " p HS
.ntact rcrton Christine Galavotti section Family Health
Jdrcsi 255 East Paces Ferry Rd. Mail St op E14 contact p-rcn„ Stephen Purser, NPH
Atlanta, Georgia 3030b Telephone (415) 554-2563
nounl Requested S 566,947 Application Deadline tlulv 26. 199T
rm: From 09/30/92 To 09/29/93 Notification rrp f n f d September 25, 1992
:alth Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee ^
Full Doard
.T'ft" Pf^crlption; Rcouca to (apffy&X) (accept znd expend) a («*#) (ajndnuanc>n) ^lK^«iW?r^P»^^8^^ .
3^ vr~r^« — *) ET2Iil - m ^ amount G f s 566 , 947 from the period of 09/30/92 to 09/29/93
10 provide Family planning and HIV services. sen-ices.
_Summ?'-vT Ic^^^^r.^A^u - -— w.^ *~^ ~*r-^~) PART B
This is the second year of funding for a clinical demonstration project designed to
provide clinical and educational services for high risk women in non-traaitional setti ngs.
Hypotheses and strategies for preventing HIV Infection among women ana inrants are tes ted
in high risk neighborhoods.
I Ootcomfe/obicctivc-:: A street outreach team will continue to recruit high risk women
into non-traditional family planning clinics providing health services. Services will
be provided every six months and the success of the interventions will be measurea usi ng
c,nrh outcomes as utilization of family planning, reproductive health, STD/HIV and drug
treatment services, decreases in unintended pregnancies and Slu rates.
Provision of medical, counseling, and education services for women at high risk for
HIV transmission through commumty-Dased clinic Sites will not be possible. A
valnahlP opportunity to provide clinical care to women who are extremely hard to reach
arid serve will be lost.
financial Information:
Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D P.tc. Kz;ch Aneroid frr
TwoVci.TA;o ? ia Ytir/OHj. Proposed Cctnrc
Lat Aaouat 321.178 (566,947) +245,769 "
•-rsonnel 46,300 ( 44,881) - 1,419
Quisatn;
jotraet Src 250,787 (501,498) + 250,711
=t. £ Su P? . 12,000 ( 7,500) - 4,500
cilitits/Spzcc
;ber (travel) 4,800 ( 6,000) + 1 ,200
Costs 7,291 ( 7,068)- 223
esc
|r esc .7 .59 - .11
z\ 2.0 8.73 + 6.73
o--rcc(s) of DOD-rr 2 ;; r-j-cir; '.or sprits of CSC c^olovccs workie;
pT7T. r^.--.....,
:d'. :c.-EaiE2les? if so. Hos?
0?:q Bid Soli Sour:: x [»-,.«.ci^«rfci=.»e;«=l
19
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item le - File 146-92-75
Department
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description:
No. of Persons
to be Served:
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Community Public Health Services
Family Health Bureau
Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to
apply for, retroactively, accept and expend a grant of $358,922,
which includes administrative costs in the amount of $1,700,
from California Family Planning Council, Inc., and
providing for ratification of action previously taken.
$358,922
January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993
California Family Planning Council, Inc.
Family Planning and Pregnancy Testing Services
The proposed grant would continue to provide funding for
family planning services to low income, ethnically diverse
women, ages 15-44, in San Francisco. This funding has been
provided since 1971, under Title X of the Public Health
Services Act. The California Family Planning Council, Inc.,
located in Los Angeles, has administered Federal family
planning funds throughout California since 1983. The
proposed grant funds represent approximately 30 percent of
family planning funds in San Francisco which, together with
funds provided by the State Office of Family Planning (45%)
and the City's General Fund (25%), provides for
approximately 13,100 patient visits annually at 17 facilities.
These facilities include the district health centers, UCSF, the
Special Programs for Youth (SPY) network of youth centers,
women's shelters, and other sites. Services include medical
examinations, pregnancy testing, contraceptive counseling,
contraceptive supplies, and other reproductive health
services.
Approximately 13,100 patient visits in 1993
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Project Budget Personnel
Effi Amount
2593 Health Program Coordinator HI
2591 Health Program Coordinator H
2328 Nurse Practitioner
2587 Health Worker m
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Operating Expenses
Materials and Supplies
Laboratory Equipment
Travel
Subtotal
Contractual Services
UCSF Mandated Contract*
Pharmacy and Cytology Services
Subtotal
Administrative Costs
0.8
1.0
0.8
Q£
3.1
$42,078
39,520
4337
14,079
30.976
$170,000
$20,222
2,000
2.000
$125,000
38.000
24,222
163,000
Total Proposed Grant
$358,922
* The DPH reports that the Federal grantor mandates that
UCSF provide the hospital based services for this program.
Required Match: None
Indirect Costs: It is the policy of the funding agency not to pay indirect costs,
but the agency will award one percent of personnel costs to
defray a<lministrative expenses.
Comments: 1. The DPH reports that the application for the proposed
grant, which was due on December 1, 1992, has already been
submitted by the Department. Therefore, the proposed
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken.
2. The proposed grant amount of $358,922 is the same as the
amount awarded in 1992.
3. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by
the DPH, for the proposed grant.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
4. Disability Access Checklists for the 17 facilities where
services will be provided are included in the Board of
Supervisors file.
ion: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
22
Item - No. ,_
H»-?11r> CTnm' c ^'T'
. <;.
mm?
— r nf r.r?pt
IRcy. 4/10/PO
Cramor Cal. Family Plann ing Council. Inc.
Contact Terson Thomas Kring
Address 3600 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Family Health Bureau
Division CPHS
Section-
Contact Person Stephen Purser
Telephone 554-2569
358.922
Amount Requested S
Term: From 01/01/93 To 12/31/93
Health Commission
Application Deadline September 15, 1992
Notification Expected December 15, 1992
Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee
Full Doard . .
y. Ttem r>r<crlniion: Request to (apply for) (accept 2nd expend) a (KM) (continuation) (2DQQfl&i9^&gJ8£KSG§SH£e)
ig-o. •«"*•<*- --*> grant - m ft- amounl of S 358.922 from the period of 01/01/93 to 12/31/93
to provide family planning and pregnancy fesMng services.
T T , Summary? (c—uan^^ry.— rfjiwa i; »«-w»»»^«j»~v«* «»<*». udr^nkn)
This grant will enable the continuation of family planning and pregnancy testing serv-
ices to San Francisco residents. The target population consists of low-income, ethnic-
ally diverse women ages 15-44.-- Services will be provided at various Health Department
District Health Centers.
TTT. Outcome WQb'c c tivf <:
To provide medical examinations and contraceptive supplies in compliance with CFPC
requirements for approximately 13, 100 patient visits.
TV. F,r(y r t* nf Tj -ducting
gala
of TK.<. Fun(5c;
Increases in unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Financial Tnfnrmetion:
Grzat Asnouat
? ersonn el
Equipment
"Contract Sve.
M2t. £: Supp.
?2cilities/Sp zee
Other (Travel)
Indirect Costs
i ^o Vesn A«o
35«.q??
170.000
2.000
163.000
20.222
-0-
2,000
1,700
VT
n
^l^_
VTT.
F/T CSC
P/T CSC
C o a : .- 2 c ; u z 1
Soarce(s) of aoa-jrzat f-acir.
None
170.000
2.000
163.000
20,222
-0-
2,000
1,700
Col. c
Proposed
358,922
Col
Chz.
-0-
170,000
-0-
2,000
-0-
163,000
-0-
20,222
-0-
-0-
-0-
2,000
-0-
1,700 •
-0-
4
-0-
1
-0-
3
-0-
P.rc. Match
Ancmv?d b_r
S2l2ri:s of CSC eraulovces •forkic; azrt-tiiae oa
» ill gran: fuadtd employees be retziaed 2fisr this jraa: terminates? If so, How?
Yes, through other funding sources and seniority in the Civil Service System.
LgUI ^O^r,.,,!
il Or.a
So!; Sou:
XX
^Sole source approved by Health Commission through 12/31/93, 5/16/89
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item If -File 147-92-5
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description-
Budget:
Public Library
Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept
and expend funds available from the United States Department of
Education for a Project Read Outreach Program, including indirect
costs of $1,644.
$34,530
October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993
U.S. Department of Education, Library Services and Construction
Act (LSCA), Title IV
Project Read Student Support Services
The proposed grant funds would be used for student support
services for Project Read. Project Read is the adult literacy
program of the San Francisco Public Library. The Project Read
program offers English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading
and writing skills, free confidential tutoring by trained volunteers.
The student support services, which would be funded with the
proposed grant funds, would include strengthening learner
involvement in the Program, through creating a structure and
opportunity for adult learners to increase their education and
contribute to the Program and to each other. Proposed projects
include an Adult Learner Council, Writing Workshops, Quarterly
Workshops and an Adult Learner Event.
All of the proposed grant funds used for Project Read Student
Support Services would be provided under a contractual agreement
to the Friends of the San Francisco Library. The Friends of the San
Francisco Library would use the grant funds as follows:
Personnel
Student Support Services
Coordinator (0.75 FTE)
Fringe Benefits (@14 percent)
Personnel Total
Su pplies (includes notebooks, printing and
postage)
Other (includes Writing Instructor's Fee,
Guest Speaker Fee and Instructional
Workshop)
$21,216
2.970
$24,186
1,500
7.200
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
24
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Total Direct Charges $32,886
Indirect Costs (approximately
five percent of the total direct charges) 1.644
Total $34,530
Required Match: None.
Indirect Costs: $1,644 or approximately 5 percent of total direct charges of $32,886.
Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on October 1,
1992. According to Ms. Ana Linder of the Public Library, because of
adniinistrative delays, the proposed grant funds have already been
accepted and expended by the Public Library. Therefore, the
proposed resolution should be amended to authorize the Public
Library to accept and expend the proposed grant funds
retroactively.
2. According to Ms. Linder, contractual services would be provided
under a sole-source contract to the Friends of the San Francisco
Public Library. Ms. Linder reports that the Friends of the Library
started Project Read in 1983, and thus is very knowledgeable about
the program. In addition, Friends of the Library would provide
a<lministrative support services free of charge.
3. Friends of the Library is a non-profit organization, and therefore
is not subject to the Human Rights Commission's MBE/WBE and
LBE requirements.
4. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request form completed by
the Public Library.
5. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file.
Reco mm endations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public Library to
accept and expend the proposed grant funds retroactively.
2. Approve the proposed grant funds as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
25
jcrsisre numoe*..
Grant Application Information Form ,
A document required to accompany a proposed resolution
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant
To: The Board of Supervisors
Attn: Clerk of the Board
The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying
resolution:
Department: San Francisco Public Library/ Project Read
Contact Person: Ana Linder Telephone: 557-4388
_ . „,-,_, Student Support Services
Project Title: lf_ ,
Grant Source: Dept. of Education LSCA title VI ;
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary:
Project Read is the adult literacy program of the San Francisco Public Library. It
offers English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading and writing skills, free
confidential tutoring by trained volunteers. Project Read seeks funds to enhance
program effectiveness.
One need that has evolved as Project Read has grown and matured is the need for
stronger learner involvment in our program, and more opportunities for adult .•
learners to meet and learn from one another. Many adult learners who come to
Project Read for help feel that they, alone, have problems reading and writing.
The shame they feel ofren keeps them isolated. We propose to create structure
and opportunity for adult learners to increase their education and contribute
to the program and to each other. Proposed designs include: an Adult Learner
Council, Writing Workshops, Quarterly Workshops and an Adult Learner Event.
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $ 34.530
Maximum Funding Amount Available: $ 35 ,ooo
Required Matching Funds: -o-
Number of Positions Created and Funded: 3/4
IND/K0C T COS* T S/o ~1 lb**
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $ 32,886
j jt*tl*°
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? no ■'
Friends of the San Francisco Public Library have been contracted and have managed
Project Read grants for years free of administrative charges.
26
gZ0£[Page*2
Term of ! Grant
October 1, 1992 - September 30, 1993
Date Department Notified of Available funds: September 6, 199 2-:
Application Due Date: December 13, 1991
Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement, or
appropriations legislation):
See Attached
7d~-M r D.
Department Head Approval
27
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item lg -File 147-92-6
Department
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description:
Budget
Public Library
Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept
and expend funds available from the United States Department of
Education for a Project Read Outreach Program, including indirect
costs of $1,383.
$29,033
October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993
U.S. Department of Education, Library Services and Construction
Act (LSCA), Title VI
Project Read Outreach Services
The proposed grant funds would be used for outreach services for
Project Read. Project Read is the adult literacy program of the San
Francisco Public Library. The Project Read program offers
English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading and writing skills,
free confidential tutoring by trained volunteers.
The proposed grant funds would be used to develop an outreach
program for student and minority volunteers who act as tutors.
Specifically, the outreach plan would involve community agencies,
businesses, churches, professional organizations, tutors and
students, in order to meet the goal of increasing the number of
African- American and Latino volunteers in the Project Read
program.
All of the proposed grant funds used for Project Read student
Support Services would be provided under a contractual agreement
to the Friends of the San Francisco Library. The Friends of the San
Francisco Library would use the grant funds as follows:
Personnel
Volunteer Manager (0.75 FTE)
Fringe Benefits (@15 percent)
Personnel Total
Su pplies (includes tutor recognition
plaques, printing and postage)
Other (includes Continuing Education
Sessions and Learning Assessment
Consultations)
$21,000
3.150
$24,150
1,000
2.500
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
28
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Total Direct Charges $27,650
Indirect Cost (approximately
five percent of the total direct charges) 1.383
Total $29,033
Required Match: None.
Indirect Costs: $1,383 or approximately 5 percent of total direct charges of $27,650.
Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on October 1,
1992. According to Ms. Ana Linder of the Public library, because of
administrative delays, the proposed grant funds have already been
accepted and expended. Therefore, the proposed resolution should
be amended to authorize the Public Library to accept and expend the
proposed grant funds retroactively.
2. According to Ms. Linder, contractual services would be provided
under a sole-source contract to the Friends of the San Francisco
Public Library. Ms. Linder reports that the Friends of the Library
started project Read in 1983, and thus is very knowledgeable about
the program. In addition, Friends of the Library would provide
administrative support services free of charge.
3. Friends of the Library is a non-profit organization, and therefore
is not subject to the Human Rights Commission's MBE/WBE and
LBE requirements.
4. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request form completed by
the Public Library.
5. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public Library to
accept and expend the proposed grant funds retroactively.
2. Approve the proposed grant funds as amended.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
rixe numcer
Grant Application Information Form
A document required to accompany a proposed resolution
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant
To: The Board of Supervisors :■ 'SS
Attn: Clerk of the Board ^ 7^ %
The following describes the grant referred to in ttge accompanying
resolution: - t ',*
Department: San Francisco Public Library/ Project Read
Contact Person: Ana Linder Telephone: ss7-^rr
Project Title: Outreach Project
Grant Source: Dept. of Education, lsca title vi
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary:
Project Read is the adult literacy program of the San Francisco Public Library..
It offorb English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading and writing skills,
free confidential tutoring by trained volunteers. Project Read seeks funds to
implement a student and minority tutor outreach project.
A number of barriers must be overcome for a person to come to Project Read.
Getting the word out to potential students is a challenge because adults
who lack reading skills often lack access to information. A well-developed
outreach plan can do much to pave the way to literacy for an increasing number
of adults. To reach potential minority volunteers, a personal, culturally
appropriate approach is necessary. Project Read proposes to implement an
outreach plan that involves, community agencies, businesses, churches, professional
organizations, tutors and students to invite more adult learners and more
African-American and Latino volunteers to join our program.
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: ? 29.033
Maximum Funding Amount Available: ? 35.000
Required Matching Funds y -o-
Number of Positiorfs>.<freated and Funded: V4 _/fl V 5 199!
Amount to be Spent on Cont r actua 1 /ServiceV. ? 27,650 f
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? no
Friends of the San Francisco Public Library have been contracted and have managed
Project Read grants for years free of administrative charges.
30
Grant Application. Information Form
Page 2
Term of Grant
October 1, 1992 - September 30 , 1993
Date Department Notified of Available funds:
Application Due Date: December 13, 1991
September 6, 1992
Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or
appropriations legislation):
See Attached
%u^M c£l
Department Head Approval
31
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item lh -File 140- 92-1
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds
Grant Period:
Grant Program:
Description:
Fire Department
Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to accept and
expend a State grant for a Heat Stress Prevention Program,
including $2,540 for indirect costs
$50,725
California Department of Industrial Relations
One year from approval of the proposed grant
Heat Stress Prevention Program
The proposed grant funded Heat Stress Prevention Program
would be a new training program to educate firefighters
regarding activities which lead to dehydration and methods
to prevent this condition from occurring. According to the
Fire Department, heat stroke and heat exhaustion accounted
for 1.2 percent of the illness reported to the International
Association of Firefighters 1990 Death and Injury Survey.
However, Dr. Deborah J. Owen, Fire Surgeon for the Fire
Department, indicates that many injuries incurred by
Firefighters may be the result of dizzyness that results from
heat stress.
For the first phase of the program the Fire Department will
conduct tests at two Fire Stations for symptoms related to
heat stress. The results of the medical tests will be used in
educating 50 Firefighters regarding the causes and
symptoms of heat stress and ways of preventing heat stress.
The 50 Firefighters will then train all other Firefighters in
the department. A video will be produced as a training aide.
The program training will emphasize drinking fluids at fire
scenes to prevent the dehydration that leads to heat stress. In
order to encourage the drinking of fluids at fire scenes, the
program will purchase 65 drinking water dispensers that
will be mounted on fire engines and ladder trucks.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Grant Budget: Personnel Costs
Project Facilitator
$2,500
Performance and Eval. Coordinator
1,000
Research Assistant
1,200
Video Production Facilitator
2,500
Bookkeeper-Accountant
1,000
Secretary-Typist
500
Subtotal-Personnel Costs
$8,700
Support Services
Video Production and Development
$2,460
Video Training and Distribution
1,000
Learning Program
2,000
Medical Testing
1,000
Maintenance of Program
500
Subtotal-Support Services
6,960
Operating Costs
Supplies
$500
Travel and Meals
715
Training Materials:
40-Video Tapes
400
Medical Test Materials
3,400
Posters/Bulletins
1,000
Printing
680
Postage
580
Medical Testing Materials
150
Water Dispenser Materials
2.000
Subtotal-Operating Costs
9,425
Equipment
65 Water Dispensers
$2,600
Video Production Equipment Rental
3,000
Subtotal-Equipment
5,600
Contractual Services
Health Educator
$4,000
Curriculum Development Consultant
500
Video Production Company
13,000
Subtotal-Contractual Services
17,500
Indirect Costs
2,540
Total Proposed Grant
$50,725
Local Match: None required
Indirect Costs: $2,540 (five percent of the grant)
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Comments: 1. The Fire Department applied for the proposed grant on
May 1, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be
amended to ratify action previously taken.
2. As of the writing of this report, the Fire Department has
not submited a Disability Check List or a Summary of Grant
Request. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be
continued for one week to allow the department time to
submit these required forms.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to ratify action previously
taken in applying for the proposed grant.
2. Continue the amended resolution one week to allow the
department time to complete and submit the Disability Check
List and a Summary of Grant Request forms.
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
34
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item li - File 148-92-10
Department
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description:
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Works to
apply for, accept and expend, a grant from the State of
California, Resources Agency for providing additional
environmental enhancement improvements and allowable
indirect costs in the Embarcadero Surface Roadway Project.
$350,000
If approved, funds will be available for expenditure during a
two year period beginning with the date of approval.
State of California Resources Agency - Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation Program (AB 471)
Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project
The Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project is a
component of the Waterfront Transportation Projects
including the Embarcadero Surface Roadway Project, the F-
Embarcadero Historic Streetcar Line and the MUNI Metro
Extension.
The proposed project will plant 745 sycamore and canary
island palm trees in the median and along the sidewalks of the
Embarcadero Roadway of the North, South and King Segments
of the Waterfront Transportation Projects (see attached map).
The trees will help to mitigate carbon dioxide buildup that will
be associated with the reconstructed roadway and extension of
the MUNI Metro light rail system. The Waterfront Projects
will open up the Embarcadero to pedestrians and bicyclists and
the trees will be a major contributor to this enhanced public
access.
The Embarcadero Roadway Project is included in the adopted
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and in the
locally certified capital outlay program of the San Francisco
County Transportation Authority. The total roadway
development and construction budget is $93.7 million,
excluding the budgets for MUNI Metro Extension and the F-
Embarcadero Historic Streetcar Line.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
35
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
The proposed Tree Enhancement Project will also utilize funds
provided from the 1-280 Interstate Transfer, the local 1/2 cent
Transportation Sales Tax and a Tree Dedication program
totaling $1,964,050 as follows:
Funding Sources Amount
State Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation
Grant (subject of this legislation) $ 350,000
1-280 Interstate Transfer 1,286,942
1/2 cent Transportation Sales Tax 227,108
Tree Dedication Program 100.000
Total $ 1,964,050
Project Budget
Item Description
Sycamore Trees, 36-inch box
Sycamore Trees, 24-inch box
Canary Island Palm Trees
Tree Grates
Imported Planting Soil
180-day landscaping maintenance
Subtotal
Administrative & Contingency Costs at 10 percent
Total
Required Match: None required for State funds.
Ouantitv
-Unit CpBt
Total Cost
627
$800
$ 501,600
3
300
900
115
6,000
690,000
384
750
288,000
lump sum
-
236,000
lump sum
-
69.000
$1,785,500
178.550
$1,964,050
Indirect Costs: The total project budget of $1,964,050 includes indirect costs of
$89,275
Comments: 1. The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
(EEMP) is a $100 million State of California Grant Program
authorized by AB 471 which is distributing $10 million
annually over ten years in individual grants up to $500,000 for
local highway landscaping and urban forestry projects.
2. Mr. James Cheng, DPW Project Manager for the
Embarcadero Roadway Project, advises that the Roadway Plan
initially did not specify the types of trees to be planted. On
January 22, 1992, after several public hearings, the Port
Commission approved a resolution which determined that the
median trees will be Canary Island Palm Trees and the
landside and sidewalk trees will be Sycamore trees. The
distribution of trees for the total project cost of $1,964,050 is as
follows:
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
36
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Waterfront
Location
Palms
Svcamores
Total
Trees
North Embarcadero
South Embarcadero
King Street Segment
Total Trees
50
65
115
120
190
320
630
170
255
220.
745
3. Mr. Leonard Tom of DPW reports that two other sources of
funds, the 1-280 Interstate Transfer totaling $1,286,942 and 1/2
cent Transportation Sales Tax totaling $227,108, have already
been authorized and committed to the Waterfront Roadway
Tree Enhancement Project.
4. The fourth source of funding for the subject project is a Tree
Dedication Program totaling $100,000 (assuming 25 dedicated
trees @ $4,000 per dedication). This program is being
established to allow private individuals or businesses to
contribute to the cost of planting trees on the Embarcadero.
Acknowledgment of each contribution will be made at
appropriate locations in the roadway. A target of $100,000 has
been set for contributions from this program. Contributions
received will be used to offset Transportation Sales Tax Funds
which would be the alternative source of funds if the Tree
Dedication Program were not successful.
5. Mr. Tom indicates that, if the $350,000 grant application is
not approved by the State of California Resources Agency, DPW
would transfer additional funds from the 1/2 cent
Transportation Sales Tax for this project.
6. In January 1992, DPW applied to the State of California
Resources Agency for $500,000 under the subject program to
assist with the Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project
(File 148-92-1) as part of the State's 1991-92 funding cycle, but
was not awarded any funds. (The San Francisco Friends of the
Urban Forest was the only local applicant that received
$176,000 for a "Neighborhood Mitigation Project" from this
State funding cycle.)
7. Maintenance and care of the proposed trees to be planted as
part of the Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project will
be provided by DPW as part of its overall maintenance activities
for the entire waterfront. Annual maintenance costs are
estimated to be $30,000. According to Mr. Tom, funding for
such maintenance will be provided by revenues from the 1/2
cent Transportation Sales Tax. These maintenance costs are
included in a twenty-year budget projection for the use of local
transportation sales tax revenues by DPW.
BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
37
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Reco mmendat ion: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
38
Attachment
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item li - File 148-91-8.2
Department
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Project
Description:
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Release of reserved funds for consultant services for planning
and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway
Replacement Project.
$325,375
Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Funds
and State Highway Funds
Embarcadero Replacement Project
On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the
Director of Public Works to apply for $58.5 million in Federal
Highway Administration Emergency Relief Funds for the
planning, design and construction of a subsurface alternative
to the Embarcadero Freeway, and to accept and expend
$4,593,600 of said funds for planning and environmental work
for the project. In addition, the Board reserved $1,674,600 of the
$4,593,600 for various contractual services related to the
planning and environmental work, pending provision of
contractual details, hourly rates and the MBE/WBE/LBE status
of the contractors (File 148-91-8).
On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the
Director of Public Works to apply for $11.0 million in State
Highway Funds for the planning, design and construction of a
subsurface alternative to the Embarcadero Freeway, and to
accept and expend $756,400 of said funds for planning and
environmental work for the project. In addition, the Board
reserved $275,400 of the $756,400 for various contractual
services related to the planning and environmental work,
pending provision of contractual hours, hourly rates and the
MBE/WBE status of the contractors (File 148-91-9).
Therefore, the total amount of funds on reserve for planning
and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway
Replacement Project is $1,950,000 ($1,674,600 plus $275,400).
On June 10, 1992 the Finance Committee released $1,624,625
from a total requested release of $1,950,000 and continued to
reserve the remaining $325,375 as recommended by the Budget
Analyst. DPW identified a total of $1,476,932 for contractual
services of which $590,998 or approximately 40 percent of these
costs for such services to be performed by Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) including Minority and Women
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
40
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) firms. Adding a 10 percent
contingency increased this total amount by $147,693 from
$1,476,932 to $1,624,625. Thus the difference between the
requested $1,950,000 release of funds and the actual $1,624,625
release is $325,375, which is the subject of this item.
DPW has identified an amendment to its existing Embarcadero
Replacement Project totaling $580,815 as follows:
Release of Funds (this item) $325,375
Reprogramming of existing planning funds 255.440
Total Plan Amendment $580,815
The proposed cost changes by task and by consulting firm
would be as follows:
Description
Amount
Comments:
Initiation of Environmental Documentation
$ 2,855
Environmental Studies and Reports
311,183
Draft EIS/Em
30,858
Public Hearing
1,233
Responses to Comments, Final EIS/EIR
24,031
Meetings
17,242
Project Management
4,149
Engineering Services
135,629
Fee
53.635
Total
$580,815
Consulting Firms
Amount
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, & Douglas
$119,273
Douglas Wright Consulting
9,179
Aileen C. Hernandez Associates (MBE/WBE)
3,146
Public Affairs Management (WBE)
6,273
Finger & Moy (MBE)
11,955
Baseline Environmental Consulting (WBE)
23,500
Jonas & Associates (WBE)
7,562
E. M. Rose & Associates (MBE)
9,519
Harding Lawson Associates
9,735
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates
7,229
Korve Engineering
259,229
Chaudhary & Associates (MBE)
114515
Total Consultants
$580,815
1. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas (PBQ&D) as the
prime contractor indicates that the contractors involved in this
project will devote a total of 16,808 hours to the project and that
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
41
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
the hourly rates charged by the contractors range from $12.00
to $61.25.
2. The estimated budget for the Planning Phase
(Environmental and Preliminary Engineering) for the
Embarcadero Freeway Replacement Project is as follows:
City Departments Amount
Department of Public Works (DPW) $2,900,000
Department of Parking and Traffic 250,000
Department of Planning 220,000
City Attorney 5,000
Real Estate Department 35,000
(DPW) Bureau of Environmental Regulation and
Management 40.000
Subtotal $3,450,000
Consultant Costs $1,833,039
Total $5,283,039
3. Ms. Sara Pickus, Project Manager at the DPW advises that
the additional $580,815 in consultant costs would amend and
increase the total request for consultant services from
$1,252,224 to $1,833,039, as follows:
Consulting Firms Amount
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, & Douglas $630,294
Douglas Wright Consulting 89,595
Aileen C. Hernandez Associates (MBE/WBE) 46,692
Public Affairs Management (WBE) 138,284
Finger & Moy (MBE) 99,761
Baseline Environmental Consulting (WBE) 150,361
Jonas & Associates (WBE) 63,848
E. M. Rose & Associates (MBE) 54,367
Harding Lawson Associates 64,585
Wilson, Birig & Associates 61,405
Korve Engineering 319,632
Chaudhary & Associates (MBE) 114.215
Total Consultants $1,833,039
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
hi
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
4. Ms. Pickus reports that the requested funds are needed to do
the environmental impact report (EIR) portion of the
Embarcadero Freeway project, irrespective of whether the City
decides to build a subsurface or surface road. Ms. Pickus
advises that the EIR work must be done before construction
work can begin.
Recommendation; Release the reserve.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
43
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Items 2. 3. 4. fi and 6 ■ Files 65-92-15. 65-92-16. 65-92-17. 65-92-18 and 65-92-19
Refer to the separate Budget Analyst's report of December 7, 1992 regarding
the proposed amendments to Candlestick Park Lease and Amendments to Related
Agreements with the San Francisco Giants.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
44
.Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item 7 -File 118-92-9
Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee at the
November 17, 1992 City Services Committee meeting because of its
fiscal impact.
Item: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter C of the San
Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by adding Article
26 thereto, encompassing sections 1601 through 1633 to
establish a comprehensive lead hazard reduction program.
Description: The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code to
include provisions intended to reduce the exposure to lead
among children and other residents of San Francisco.
Exposure to lead represents a health hazard which is
especially dangerous to children, since it can damage the
central nervous system, result in reduced concentration and
attentiveness, create permanent learning disabilities and
otherwise interfere with healthy development.
A significant source of lead exposure is lead-based paint,
which was manufactured until 1977 and used extensively in
buildings constructed prior to that time. DPH reports that
80 to 85 percent of San Francisco's housing stock was
constructed before 1980, and 70 to 75 percent was
constructed before the 1950's, at a time when paint
contained a very high concentration of lead.
The proposed ordinance would establish a comprehensive
program to educate City residents and adults who work
with children to the hazards of lead exposure, and to
establish investigative, abatement, and case management
procedures to reduce the City's lead hazards and to enhance
access by San Francisco residents to appropriate medical
services.
The proposed ordinance provides for the following
components of the Comprehensive Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program:
Citv Agency Task Force (Section 1606) : The Director of
Public Health would convene and co-ordinate a City Agency
Task Force to exchange information and co-ordinate inter-
departmental lead abatement activities. The Task Force
would include representatives of the Department of Public
Health, Department of Public Works, Department of City
Planning, Department of Social Services, the Recreation
and Park Department, the Public Library, the Public
Utilities Commission, the Mayor's Office, and the Chief
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
45
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Administrative Officer. The Director of Public Health
would request the participation of the Redevelopment
Agency, the Housing Authority, San Francisco Unified
School District, and any other agencies with relevant
expertise.
Except for its provisions regarding the departments to be
represented, as stated above, the proposed ordinance does
not specify the number of Task Force members.
Lead Poisoning Prevention Citizens Adv isory Committee
(Section 1607) : This Committee (a separate body from the
City Agency Task Force) would review implementation of
the proposed ordinance and recommend appropriate policies
and activities for medical screening and primary lead
poisoning prevention activities. The 30 members of the
committee would be appointed by the Board of Supervisors
according to guidelines of the proposed ordinance. The
Committee would include representatives of the
Department of Social Services, Department of Public
Health, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Child Care, the
Recreation and Park Department, and the San Francisco
Unified School District.
Lead Hazard Reduction Citizens Advisory Committee
(Section 1608) : This committee (a third separate body under
the proposed ordinance) would prepare an annual report to
the Board of Supervisors regarding policies and procedures
for a lead hazard reduction program for residential
buildings. Within six months the committee would be
required to submit draft legislation to amend the
Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance to regulate the
assignment to tenants of any costs associated with lead
hazard reduction measures. The Committee would consist
of 16 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors,
including 3 representatives from City departments.
Citv Support for Task Force a n d Committees : According to
the proposed ordinance, the Director of Public Health would
be required to provide clerical assistance to the City Agency
Task Force and the Lead Poisoning Prevention and Lead
Hazard Reduction Citizen Advisory Committees described
above. Under the proposed ordinance, members of the Lead
Poisoning Prevention and the Lead Hazard Reduction
Citizen Advisory Committees would serve without
compensation or reimbursement for expenses.
Annual Renort bv Dire ctor of Public Health (Section 1609) :
The Director of Public Health would be required to submit
an annual report describing the current efforts of all City
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
agencies pursuant to the proposed ordinance and to assess
the effectiveness of the lead poisoning prevention program.
The annual report would include recommendations for
additional legislation to improve the program and a survey
of similar State and local efforts.
Information Bulletin ( Section 1610) : The Director of Public
Health would be required to prepare a bulletin to address
lead poisoning hazards, screening and testing activities,
procedures for abatement of hazards, sources of further
information and assistance, and the requirements of the
proposed ordinance.
Information and Outreach (Section 1611): The Information
Bulletin would be provided by the Director of Public Health
to the following individuals or agencies: physicians in San
Francisco's Child Health and Disability Prevention
Program (CHDP), the San Francisco Unified School
District, the Department of Social Services, the Head Start
program, City health care facilities, private physicians, the
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth, and Their Families, the
City's licensed child care facilities, and persons seeking to
obtain a certified birth certificate of a child under 6 years of
age.
The Director of Public Health would issue a directive to the
Public Library, Department of Social Services, the
Recreation and Park Department, and other appropriate
agencies, directing them to provide information concerning
lead poisoning prevention programs to children and parents
participating in City programs.
Use of Appropriate Languages (Section 1612) : City
departments providing information and outreach services
pursuant to the proposed ordinance would provide these
services in "a language appropriate to the target audience."
Educational Training (Section 1613) : Operators of child care
facilities funded with City revenue would be required to
participate in an educational training program concerning
lead hazards and lead poisoning prevention activities.
Building and Demol ition Permits (Section 1614): The
Bureau of Building Inspection would be required to provide
information concerning health risks of lead exposure to any
persons applying for a building or demolition permit.
Information Included in Tax Bills (Section 1615) : The Tax
Collector would be required to include the Information
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
47
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Bulletin prepared by the Director of Public Health in county
property tax bills.
Case Manag ement Services (Section 1617): The Director of
Public Health would implement a program to track and
follow-up each case of childhood lead poisoning, including
lead hazard assessment of the child's dwelling unit.
Enrollmen t in Child Health and Disability Program
(Section 1618) : The Director of Pubhc Health would develop
an outreach program to inform parents or guardians of
eligibility requirements of the CHDP program.
Temporary Safe Housing (Section 1619): The Director of
Public Health would develop a program to provide
temporary safe housing, as needed for children and families
exposed to lead hazards, who cannot make such
arrangements themselves.
Data Management (Section 1620): The Director of Public
Health would be required to collect and analyze information
regarding cases of childhood lead poisoning and primary
prevention and screening activities.
Blood Teat Reporting bv Medical Doctors and Laboratories
(Section 1621) : Every physician and clinical laboratory
would be required to report the results of all blood tests to
the Department of Public Health. The reports would
include any demographic information required on forms
prepared for that purpose by DPH.
Lead Poisoning Test Results (Section 1622) : The Director of
Public Health would be required to report every 6 months
on the results of all lead tests performed by DPH for San
Francisco residents, including demographic statistics.
Departments to Identify Lead Contaminated Sites (Section
1623) : Within 90 days of the effective date of the proposed
ordinance, the Director of Public Health would issue
guidelines regarding the characteristics of City-owned
property which could present lead hazards. Every City
department with jurisdiction over a building meeting the
criteria defined by DPH would undertake an assessment
program in accordance with the guidelines, and report the
results to the Director of Public Health. The Director of
Public Health would be authorized to take any appropriate
actions to provide public notice of the conditions of pubhc
buildings and abate any lead hazards found to exist.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Selection o f High Priority Areas (Section 1624) : The
Director of Public Health would develop a program to
identify geographical areas of the City with particular high
risk of lead contamination. These areas would receive
priority in the City's efforts to reduce exposure to lead.
Selection criteria to be considered would include previous
cases of lead poisoning, the age and condition of buildings,
inspection results, income levels, and the presence of known
sources of lead.
Hazardous Non-Houa ing Sites (Section 1625) : The Director
of Public Health would develop a program to identify all
non-housing sites within the City which are likely to expose
children to lead hazards, to be designated lead hazard
sites," and would provide public notice of these sites to the
community in which the site is located.
Inspection and Testing of Dwelling Units (Section 1626):
Inspection of dwelling units would be performed by DPH
whenever a case of childhood lead poisoning is reported at a
level of 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of whole blood,
or at a lower level as determined by the Director. The
inspections would include laboratory testing of paint, soil,
or other potentially contaminated samples taken from the
dwelling. The Director of Public Health would recommend
abatement measures. At high concentrations (as defined),
the owner of the building would be required to notify all
occupants of the building of the test results.
Incentive Programs (Section 1627) : The Mayor's Office
would develop proposed programs for grants, loans, or other
policies which would provide incentives to reduce lead
hazards and prevent childhood lead poisoning. The Mayor
would be required to submit recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors within one year.
Comprehensive Environmental Lead Poisoning Fund
(Section 1628) : The Controller would establish a fund for
deposit of all monies obtained from civil penalties imposed
under the proposed ordinance and, to the extent allowed, all
monies recovered from enforcement of laws related to lead
contamination.
The Director of Public Health would also be authorized to
accept any donations or gifts made to the City to support
the program, which upon acceptance would be deposited to
the Fund.
Penalties and Enforcement (Sectio n 1629): The Director of
Public Health would be authorized to require the correction
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
49
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Comments:
of any violations of any section of the proposed ordinance
within a reasonable period of time. If the violation is not
corrected, DPH may request the City Attorney to seek an
injunction and to recover civil penalties.
Any individual violating or failing to comply with the
proposed ordinance would be liable for a civil penalty, not to
exceed $500 for each day such a violation is committed or
permitted to continue.
Any person violating or refusing to comply with the
proposed ordinance would be guilty of an infraction, and
would be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day
the violation or refusal to comply continues. Each violation
would be punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 for a first
offense; a fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation
within a year; and a fine not exceeding $500 for each
additional violation within a year.
Any person who violates the provisions of the proposed
ordinance, after having been convicted of three or more
violations within the preceding 12-month period, could be
charged with a misdemeanor.
1. The City currently relies on the following primary
resources for lead poisoning prevention activities:
DPH Bureau of Toxics and Safety Services
Three new positions were added to the 1992-93 annual
budget of the Bureau of Toxics and Safety Services at DPH
for activities related to lead hazards. A Public Health
Nurse was added to conduct home visits in cases of lead
poisoning, an Industrial Hygienist was added to test for the
presence of lead at potentially hazardous sites, and a
Health Educator was added to conduct additional education
and outreach concerning lead hazards. The 1992-93 budget
for the Bureau of Toxics and Safety Services includes a total
of $219,577 for the salary and fringe benefit costs of the
three new employees.
DPH Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control
DPH has been awarded a grant of $125,547 for fiscal year
1992-93 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to
provide enhanced outreach and education to residents of
the Mission District, where the risk of lead exposure is
greater than in other parts of the City. The grant program
is currently being implemented and staff has not yet been
hired. However, DPH estimates that the staff will consist
of 2 Community Health Workers, 1 Secretary, and a 0.5
FTE Data Manager, at an annual cost of $104,142. These
BOARD O F SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
staff members will be hired by the California Public Health
Foundation, which administers the grant program, and
assigned to DPH, and will not be Civil Service employees.
Childhood Health and Disease Prevention Prop-am (C.HDP^
This program administers grant funds to reimburse
physicians for the cost of medical care provided to low-
income children. According to Ms. Mildred Crear of DPH,
CHDP reimbursements are not capped and are available to
all enrolled physicians who provide medical care to children
who qualify on the basis of income. Under the proposed
ordinance, DPH would conduct further outreach to increase
the number of physicians enrolled in the program, and to
publicize the availability of these services to low-income
families.
2. Dr. Alvaro Garza of the Bureau of Epidemiology and
Disease Control at DPH reports that DPH could implement
the Comprehensive Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
using existing personnel, with the possible addition of one
new Health Programs Coordinator.
Existing personnel consist of the staff assigned to lead
prevention and abatement activities of the DPH Bureau of
Toxics arid Safety Services (BTSS), and staff funded by a
grant from the Centers for Disease Control for a lead
poisoning prevention program in the Mission District (see
Comment 1).
The Budget Analyst estimates that the addition of one
Health Programs Coordinator II would entail annual
expenditures for salary and fringe benefits of approximately
$66,751, at the maximum salary amount. Since this
position is not included in the approved budget for 1992-93,
the Budget Analyst notes that the addition of such a
position to DPH staff would require a supplemental
appropriation. However, Dr. Garza reports that the position
could be funded with new tax revenues expected to be
available from the State later in 1992-93 (see Comment 7).
3. According to Dr. Garza, the proposed ordinance would
primarily require DPH to perform additional education and
outreach activities. The major cost of these activities will
be production and dissemination of the DPH Information
Bulletin, and training of child care providers.
Section 1611 of the proposed ordinance requires the DPH
Information Bulletin to be widely distributed. However,
the number of bulletins which would be required, and the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
a
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
cost of producing and distributing them, is not known at
this time. DPH reports that, according to the 1990 census,
there are approximately 42,000 children between the ages
of and 5 residing in San Francisco, whose parents,
teachers, physicians, child-care providers, and other service
providers would all be targeted to receive the bulletin. Ms.
Sue Cone of BTSS notes that if one bulletin were produced
for each child under the age of five in San Francisco, at an
estimated cost of $0.10 per bulletin, the total cost of the
bulletins would be $4,200, although this cost would increase
if more bulletins were needed or the cost to produce them
exceeded $0.10 per bulletin.
The Budget Analyst notes that training for child care
providers, as required under Section 1613, could be
provided through workshops which are currently being
developed by the 3 new lead prevention employees at BTSS.
4. Dr. Garza reports that if the number of reported cases of
childhood lead poisoning increases significantly due to the
increased education and outreach activities of the proposed
ordinance, DPH may require the addition of a new
Industrial Hygienist to perform additional residential
inspections. The Budget Analyst notes that the maximum
annual salary and fringe benefit cost for a Senior Industrial
Hygienist in 1992-93 is $95,795. Dr. Garza reports that
this position, if it were needed, could also be paid from
approximately $150,000 which Dr. Garza expects to be
allocated in 1992-93 under new State legislation (see
Comment 7).
However, Ms. Cone reports that BTSS is currently
investigating cases of childhood lead poisoning using the
three positions added in 1992-93 for the BTSS lead
prevention program, which include one Senior Industrial
Hygienist. Ms. Cone states that BTSS investigates
childhood lead poisoning in accordance with guidelines
issued by the Centers of Disease Control for lead poisoning
prevention and abatement procedures. BTSS conducts a
home visit by a Public Health Nurse in cases where a child
is found to have blood lead levels of at least 15 micrograms
per deci-liter, and evaluation by an Industrial Hygienist,
including laboratory testing of paint, soil, and other
samples, in cases where the child's blood lead level is at
least 20 micrograms per deci-liter.
Ms. Cone reports that BTSS identifies approximately 77
cases annually of children whose blood lead levels exceed 15
micrograms, and 24 cases annually of children with blood
levels of at least 20 micrograms. If these numbers were to
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
increase as the result of additional education and outreach,
the need for additional BTSS staff for home visits,
assessment, and staffing could be re-evaluated.
5. Ms. Cone reports that testing of a single residence entails
laboratory tests costing from $500 to $800, but that these
costs are currently paid by the State. If these costs are
transferred to San Francisco by the State, increased
inspection and testing of residential buildings could entail
significantly higher costs to the City for clinical laboratory
services.
6. Section 1623 of the proposed ordinance would involve the
evaluation of City-owned property for lead hazards, using
guidelines established by DPH. The cost of these
assessments, and of any abatement work recommended by
the Director of Public Health, cannot be determined at this
time. .
7. Dr. Garza reports that the State has recently enacted a
comprehensive lead poisoning prevention program, which
imposes new taxes on industries which generate materials
containing lead. Dr. Garza states that approximately
$150,000 is expected to be available to the City during
1992-93 under the new State legislation. However, the
final amount of the expected allocation is still unknown at
this time. Dr. Garza reports that the anticipated State
funds could be used to fund a Health Programs Coordinator
and a Senior Industrial Hygienist if these additional
positions were needed to implement the Comprehensive
Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The total annual cost
of these positions, at the maximum salary level, would be
$162,546. If the positions were funded for only six months
during 1992-93, the cost would be $81,273 at the maximum
salary level.
8. The Budget Analyst notes that the Mayor's proposed
budget for the 1993 Community Development Block Grant
Program includes a $500,000 proposed allocation for a Lead
Hazard Prevention Program Pool. According to the Mayor's
Office, this program pool would fund lead hazard
assessment and abatement activities at child-care facilities
that have received CDBG funds.
9. Although the Director of Public Health is authorized
under the proposed ordinance to recommend abatement
activities where lead hazards are identified, building
owners and other responsible parties would not be required
under the proposed ordinance to correct the identified
hazards. Ms. Cone reports that DPH does not require such
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
53
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Recommendation:
measures because there is a shortage of qualified
contractors in the City who can perform lead hazard
abatement activities. Ms. Cone states that some
contractors will attend workshops developed by BTSS
concerning lead hazard abatement techniques, and will
then be eligible to receive State certification as qualified
contractors for lead abatement services.
10. Under the proposed ordinance, the only corrective
measure which would be required of private property
owners would be that they notify tenants of lead hazards,
after inspection by DPH, if lead concentrations are found at
a very high level. However, under the proposed ordinance,
DPH would conduct tests only in response to identified
cases of childhood lead poisoning in excess of 20
micrograms. As noted previously, DPH estimates that
there are approximately 24 such cases on an average
annual basis.
11. This item was approved by the City Services Committee
on November 17, 1992 and transferred to the Finance
Committee because of its fiscal impact, in that it requires
an expenditure of funds for new activities by City agencies.
The total 1992-93 cost of existing General Fund and grant-
funded personnel who would be used for this program is
$323,719 (see Comment 1). In addition, if a new Health
Programs Coordinator and an additional Senior Industrial
Hygienist were needed, these positions would impose
additional annual salary costs of approximately $162,546,
or $81,273 for a six month period. The cost of information
bulletins required to be produced under the proposed
ordinance is estimated at $4,200, but the actual cost will
depend on the number of bulletins and the actual costs of
production. DPH reports that an additional $150,000 for
this program may be allocated by the State during 1992-93.
Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
54
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Items 8 and 9 - Files 101-92-15 and 102-92-7
Department:
Items:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Comment:
Department of Public Health
These items are hearings to consider:
(File 101-92-15) A supplemental appropriation ordinance
to fund a new Medical Waste Generator Program.
(File 102-92-7) An ordinance to amend the Annual Salary
Ordinance to create two new positions for the Medical
Waste Generator Program.
$93,097
New revenues generated by implementing Medical Waste
Generator fees.
As of the writing of this report the legislation for these items
has not been finalized. Therefore, the Budget Analyst cannot
report on these items until the legislation becomes available.
The Budget Analyst's previous report for the November 18,
1992 Finance Committee Meeting, regarding an ordinance
(File 118-92-8) to amend the San Francisco Health Code to
provide for the Medical Waste Generator Program is
attached. This ordinance was amended by the Finance
Committee to 1) require that the program would be fully
supported by fee revenues only (no General Fund monies
would be used to support the program) and 2) require the
program to be evaluated at the end of 18 months of operations,
and the program would be terminated at the end of two years,
if program revenue projections for the third and subsequent
years do not equal projected expenditures for the program.
This ordinance is being considered by the Board of
Supervisors on December 7, 1992.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
55
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Attachment ^
Page 1 ot>9 i
Item 7 - File 118-92-8
Department:
Item:
Department of Public Health (DPH)
The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code by
adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413 to provide for a
program for enforcement of the California Medical Waste
Management Act and for registration, permitting,
inspections and administrative fees for medical waste
generators, treatment, and storage faculties.
Description: The proposed Medical Waste Generator Registration,
Permitting, Inspection and Fee Ordinance (Medical Waste
Ordinance) would regulate the storage, treatment,
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the
City. The proposed ordinance would enable the City's DPH to
regulate private and public medical waste generator agencies
located in the City and County of San Francisco.
The proposed ordinance contains a two page technical
definition of "medical waste." Generally, "medical waste" is
the discarded superfluous material from medical or
veterinary agencies that may contain infectious disease
organisms and, therefore, is a health threat to humans and
animals. Used hypodermic needles, blood vials, bandages,
and medical instruments are examples of medical waste.
The ordinance would regulate the management of medical
waste generated by various medical facilities including:
hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, doctor's offices, veterinary
offices, health care facilities, medical laboratories, and
dental offices. Agencies having facilities that produce
medical waste would be required to send to the DPH an
informational document which includes general business
information and information on the types and volumes of
medical waste produced, medical waste handling, storage,
treatment and disposal methods. The ordinance would
require that medical waste could only be transported by State
licensed hazardous waste haulers or certain medical waste
generator agencies with limited hauling exemptions issued
by the DPH.
Agencies having facilities that treat medical waste generated
on site would also be required to comply with specified
provisions in the ordinance. Medical waste treatment is any
method designed to destroy the biological hazard of medical
waste so as to eliminate its potential for causing disease. The
ordinance additionally would regulate the storage and
transfer of medical waste by requiring permits for the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
SA
Attachment
Memo to Finance Committee Page Z or ^ .
November 18, 1992
consolidation and use of common storage areas by a group of
generators.
The proposed ordinance contains specific regulations for
large and small quantity generator agencies and fees that
would be paid to the City (estimated revenues are detailed in
Comment number 4 below) as follows:
Large quantity generators agencies would be those agencies
having facilities that generate more than 200 pounds of
medical waste each month. (The proposed ordinance defines
the constituents of "medical waste.") The proposed ordinance
requires that large quantity generator agencies register with
the DPH annually. In addition, the generator agency would
be required to submit a Medical Waste Management Plan
that includes general business information as well as
information on the types and volumes of medical waste
generated, medical waste handling, storage, treatment and
disposal methods.
This group of generator agencies would be subject to
inspection on an annual basis by the City to ensure
compliance with State and City requirements. Mr. Scott
Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager for the
DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, estimates
that there are 177 agencies in San Francisco that would fit
the large quantity medical waste generator definition of the
proposed ordinance. This large quantity medical waste
generator group includes 83 agencies that currently have
State medical waste licensed facilities and 94 licensed
laboratories, veterinary offices, and medical offices. The
proposed ordinance would require the payment of annual
registration fees to the City by large quantity generators
agencies. These annual registration fees would range from
$255 to $1,445 according to the size and type of facility.
The proposed ordinance would require that Onsite Medical
Waste Treatment Facility Permits be obtained from the DPH
by large quantity generator agencies that want to treat and
dispose of their own medical wastes. Large quantity medical
waste generator agencies that want to treat their own
medical wastes would be required to use approved methods
which include the use of an autoclave, microwave, or
incinerator. In addition, a health care facility accepting
medical waste for treatment from small quantity generators
located within 400 yards could do so as an onsite treatment
facility.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
57
Attachment
Memo to Finance Committee Page 3 ot 5
November 18, 1992
Large quantity medical waste generator agencies wanting to
obtain an onsite treatment permit would be required to
submit an application containing business information,
treatment method, facility treatment capacity, waste
characterization, and estimated average monthly quantity of
waste to be treated at the facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates
that there are 21 agencies in the City that currently treat
medical waste onsite. The annual permit fee for an onsite
autoclave permit would be $255 and the annual permit fee for
all other State Approved treatment methods would be $340. In
addition, the Director of DPH would charge large quantity
medical waste generator agencies wanting to obtain an onsite
treatment permit a permit application fee equal to $85 for
each hour that DPH staff spends processing the permit
application.
Small Quantity Generators would be those agencies having
facilities that generate less than 200 pounds of medical waste
each month. The proposed ordinance would regulate two
subgroups of small quantity generator agencies. The two
groups would include small quantity generator agencies that
treat medical waste onsite and small quantity generators that
do not treat medical waste onsite.
Small quantity generators that treat medical waste onsite
would be required to register, file a medical waste
management plan, and submit applicable fees to the DPH on
a biennial basis. The approved treatment methods for onsite
medical waste treatment would include the use of steam
sterilization, incineration, and microwave methods. The
management plan would be required to describe the method
to be used to treat, transport, and dispose of the medical
waste. In addition, this group of generator agencies would be
subject to inspection by the City on a biennial basis to ensure
compliance with State and City requirements. Small quantity
generators that treat medical waste onsite would be required
to pay a registration fee of $255 every two years. Mr.
Nakamura estimates that there are 15 agencies in the City
that currently are small quantity generator agencies that
treat medical waste onsite.
Small quantity generators that do not treat medical waste
onsite are required by the ordinance to submit to the DPH an
informational document that describes how the medical
waste is handled, stored, transported, and disposed. In
addition, the ordinance requires that small quantity
generator agencies pay a one time non-registrant fee of $75.
Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 1,600 small quantity
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
sa
Attachment
Memo to Finance Committee Page 4 of 9 '"
November 18, 1992
generator agencies that would be required to submit the
informational document and one time fee.
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions would be required to
be obtained from the DPH which would enable small quantity
generator agencies to transport up to 20 pounds of medical
waste per week. The medical waste would be required to be
transported to a licensed medical waste treatment facility or
transfer station before consolidation or treatment and
disposal. Small quantity generator agencies applying for a
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemption would be required to
pay an annual fee of $85. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there
are 50 small quantity generator agencies that would request
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions. Agencies that haul 20
pounds of medical waste per week or more would continue to
be licensed and regulated by the State.
Common Storage Facility permits would be obtained from the
DPH for small quantity generator agencies that want to store
medical waste until it is picked up by a licensed hauler. The
permit could be issued to the group of small quantity
generator agencies, the property owner or management
firm, or medical waste hauler. The fee for a Common Storage
Facility permit would range from $213 to $425 depending on
the number of generator agencies served by the storage
facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 21 groups of
small quantity generators agencies that would use common
storage facilities.
The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of the
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and
could be subject to civil action. Violations of storage,
treatment, and disposal standards would vary from small
quantity and large quantity generators. Generators violating
these standards are subject to penalties ranging from $1,000
for the first offense to no more than $25,000 and/or three years
imprisonment for multiple offenses. The Director of the DPH
would also be authorized to take emergency actions when
necessary to protect the public health or welfare. The Director
of the DPH could also assess liens for costs and charges
incurred by the City for the abatement of any imminent
danger.
The proposed ordinance authorizes the City's Director of the
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
59
Attachment
Page iot 9
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and
would be subject to a civil action.
Violations of storage, treatment, and disposal standards
would vary for small quantity and large quantity medical
waste generator agencies. Medical waste generator agencies
violating these standards would be subject to penalties
ranging from $1,000 for the first offense to no more than
$25,000 and/or three years imprisonment for multiple
offenses. The Director of the DPH would also be authorized to
take emergency actions when necessary to protect the public
health or welfare. The Director of the DPH could also assess
liens for costs and charges incurred by the City for the
abatement of any imminent hazardous waste danger.
Comments: 1. The State currently regulates the storage, treatment,
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the City
and regulates private and public medical waste generator
agencies located in the City and County of San Francisco. The
DPH intends that the proposed ordinance would give the DPH
control over medical waste in the City to better assure that the
biological character of medical waste can either be isolated or
eliminated so as to prevent medical waste from causing
disease in humans or animals. The DPH believes that it can
do a better job to assure the safety of medical waste in the City
than can the State.
2. The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990
authorizes local agencies, such as the City, to establish a
medical waste regulatory program through the adoption of a
local medical waste management ordinance. According to
Mr. Scott Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager
for the DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, the
State Department of Health Services currently administers
the regulations contained in this act and, thereby, currently
is responsible for regulating private and public facilities
located in the City that create, produce, or generate medical
wastes. Mr. Nakamura states that the State Department of
Health Services is not adequately staffed to respond to the
City's local concerns.
3. According to Mr. Nakamura, "the benefits of local
implementation of the Medical Waste Management Program
include local control over the identification and correction of
problems related to the improper management of medical
waste, faster response to incidents of improperly managed
BOARD OF ST JPKRVTSOPS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Attachment
Page 6 of 9
medical waste, the ability to address occupational safety and
health issues at medical facilities, increased communication
with medical waste generators, and coordination of local
policies which would minimize public health concerns. The
implementation of such a local program would also ensure
that registration and permit fees, which would otherwise be
submitted to the State, would stay in San Francisco."
4. The following table lists the one-time and annual fees that
would be charged for each type of agency and activity:
Number Frequency
Number of of
One Total
Annual Time First Year
TvDe of Aaencv
of Beds Aoencies Payment
fj£ |
Revenue Revenue Revenue
Larae Quantity Generator
Hospital
1to99
3
Annual
$ 510
$ 1,530
Hospital
100 to
199
200 to
250
251 plus
1
Annual
765
765
Hospital
1
Annual
1,020
1,020
Hospital
12
Annual
1,445
17,340
Skilled Nursing Facility
1to99
14
Annual
255
3,570
Skilled Nursing Facility
100 to
199
200 plus
4
Annual
340
1,360
Skilled Nursing Facility
1
Annual
425
425
Specialty Clinic
31
Annual
595
18,445
Acute Psychiatric Hospital
2
Annual
595
1,190
Intermediate Care Facility
1
Annual
595
595
Primary Care Clinic
12
Annual
595
7,140
Health Care Service Plan
5
Annual
595
2,975
Licensed Clinical Laboratory
38
Annual
255
9,690
Veterinary Offices
6
Annual
255
1,530
Medical Office*
46
Annual
255
11,730*
Small Quantity Generator
On-Site Treatment
15
Biennial
255
1,913
Off-Site Treatment
1,600
One-time
75
$120,000
Haulers Limited Quantity Hauling
50
Annual
85
4,250
Exemption
Transfer Fee*
1
595*
Common Storaae Facility Permits
1 or less Agencies Served
6
Annual
213
1^78
11 to 49 Agencies Served
10
Annual
340
3,400
50 or more Agencies Served
5
Annual
425
2,125
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
61
•
Attachment^
Memo to Finance Committee
Page / oi
°^ . »
November 18, 1992
Number
Number
of
Frequency
of
One
Annual Time
Total
First Year
Type of Agency
On-Site Medical Waste Treatment
Facility
Autoclave Treatment
of Beds Agencies Payment
20 Annual
Ebb
255
Revenue Revenue
5,100
Revenue
Other Treatment
1
Annual
340
340
Processing Fee (estimate 30
hours)
$85/Hr.
2,550
Totals
$100,856 $120,000
$220,856
* The proposed ordinance does not currently contain full provision for these fees.
The DPH is working with the City Attorney's Office to amend the proposed
ordinance to include mortuaries under the definition of medical offices and to
make provision for a transfer fee of $595 annually. The transfer fee would be
charged to haulers operating a transfer station at which medical wastes are
consolidated and transferred to another hauler's vehicle.
5. The California Medical Waste Management Act allows
counties to charge fees necessary to implement a medical
waste management program. A comparison of the proposed
fees for the City and County of San Francisco, the State of
California, and five other counties that have already
implemented medical waste management programs is
contained in the attached schedule.
Personnel Costs
6. Mr. Nakamura projects the annual costs for the
implementation of the proposed Medical Waste Program to be
$213,458. These implementation costs include personnel costs
of $135,432 and non-personnel costs of $78,026 as follows:
Classification
6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector
1446 Secretary II
Salary subtotal
Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 28%)
Total Personnel Costs
Operating Costs
Auto Mileage
Travel
Training
FTE
1.0
m
2.0
Annual
Salaries
$ 66,240
39.566
$105,806
29.626
1,000
500
2,000
$135,432
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
6?
Attachment
Memo to Finance Committee Page 8 ot 9
November 18, 1992
Contractual Services (Emergency Response) $22,000
Other Current Services 2,000
Vehicle 5,000
Postage (3 mailings by registered mail) 17,500
Telephone 1,500
Materials and Supplies 6,000
Rental of Property 5336
Data Processing Equipment 7,500
Reproduction 6,690
Medical Surveillance 1.000
Total Operating Costs 78.026
Total Cost $213,458
7. The Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would
determine the inventory of businesses subject to the
ordinance, develop letters of notification, application packets,
fact sheets, standard operating procedures, inspection forms,
enforcement procedures, fee collection procedures, review
medical waste management plans and informational
documents, and conduct inspections of facilities subject to the
ordinance. In addition, this position would conduct business
workshops for the regulated community to assist them in
complying with the requirements of the ordinance. The
Senior Clerk Typist would provide clerical support for the
program.
8. The above annual costs for the implementation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program include the staffing and
operating costs associated with the processing of
applications, development of application forms, notifications
of permit requirements, review of applications and required
documentation, inspection of medical waste generators,
issuance of permits, development and distribution of fact
sheets, newsletters, and other educational materials.
9. The costs to implement the program would be entirely
funded by the projected revenue of $220,856 from registration
and permit fees. The proposed ordinance provides for an
inspection fee of $85 per hour or each portion thereof for
inspections and associated activities. Prior to the issuance of
permits, medical waste generator agencies may be inspected
by DPH staff to ensure compliance with State and City
requirements.
10. According to Mr. Nakamura, after the initial year of
operation of the proposed Medical Waste Program, various
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
63
3&fc
Memo to Finance Committee
November 18, 1992
Attachment
Page y of 9
Recommendation:
initial costs of the Program could be eliminated or reduced.
For example, vehicle, postage and data processing expenses
could be reduced significantly. Mr. Nakamura estimates that
the annual ongoing cost of the proposed Medical Waste
Program would be approximately $30,000 less than the cost of
the initial year of operation or $183,458.
11. As stated above, the estimated revenues of $220,856 from
the fees contained in the proposed ordinance would support
the $213,458 estimated cost of the first year's operation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program. However, the estimated
revenues of $100,856 from the fees earned in the subsequent
years of the Program would not support the $183,458
estimated cost of the annual ongoing operation of the
proposed Medical Waste Program.
12. In order to hire the staff and expend funds to implement
the proposed Medical Waste Program, DPH must submit a
supplemental appropriation including the Controller's
certification of funds available from the proposed new fees to
appropriate the funds and an ordinance to amend the
Annual Salary Ordinance to create the new positions. In
addition, the collection of the proposed fees by the City would
require the hiring of staff to perform the requisite
inspections. The supplemental appropriation and the
ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance should be
companion legislation to this file since none could be
appropriately implemented without the others. Mr.
Nakamura has indicated to the Budget Analyst that he does
have a plan to fund the ongoing cost of the proposed Program
but has not finalized his plan.
Continue the consideration of this item pending 1) the
submission of a companion supplemental appropriation and
an ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance, 2) the
Department's clarification of second and subsequent years'
funding, and 3) the revision of the proposed ordinance
reflecting the specific intentions of the Department including
fees for mortuaries and medical waste hauler transfer fees.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance that would create an
additional new program responsibility for the City including
new fees and the need for additional staff and operational
costs is a policy mater for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
6A
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item 10 -File lfil-92-5.1
Department
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Recommendations:
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA)
Resolution approving an amendment to the Redevelopment
Agency's FY 1992-93 budget.
The proposed resolution would appropriate $30,000 from a
recent bond transaction fee paid to the SFRA to fund a
personal services contract with a consultant to provide
bilingual technical services to nonprofit organizations and
24th Street merchants as part of the 24th Street
Revitalization Project.
Mr. Bob Gamble of the SFRA reports that the SFRA recently
received $81,000 from the Webster Tower and Terrace bond
transaction. $51,000 represents fees past due and $30,000
represents new fees. The proposed resolution would
approve an amendment to the SFRA's budget to appropriate
$30,000 of these revenues. The remaining $51,000 has not yet
been targeted for a specific purpose.
1. As previously noted, the proposed budget amendment
would appropriate $30,000 in bond transaction fees.
However, the body of the proposed resolution indicates that
the proposed amendment to the SFRA's budget would
permit a transfer of line items for the expenditure of $30,000
for a personal services contract. As such, the proposed
resolution should be amended to delete reference to "the
transfer of line items" and replace it with "appropriate new
revenues."
2. Mr. Leaman Abrams of the Redevelopment Agency
reports that the SFRA has advertised for the proposed
consultant position but has not yet selected a consultant. As
such, the Budget Analyst recommends that the $30,000 be
placed on reserve pending selection of the consultant.
Instead, the SFRA requests the proposed resolution be
continued to the call of the Chair pending the SFRA's
selection of a consultant.
1. Amend the proposed resolution to delete reference to
"transfer of line items" and replace with "appropriate new
revenues" as described in Comment 1.
2. Continue the proposed resolution as amended to the call
of the Chair pending the SFRA's selection of a consultant as
described in Comment 2.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
65
-Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item 11 -File 197-92-5
Note: This item was continued at the October 28, 1992 Finance Committee
Meeting to allow the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes
in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues. As of the writing of this report
the City Attorney has not finalized the legislation.
1. This item is a hearing to consider the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final
Report.
2. The Cultural Affairs Task Force, consisting of 59 representatives from
various arts organizations, as well as from the private sector and City
government, was created by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1991, to: (1) survey
arts funding in San Francisco; (2) study current arts and cultural departments
and policies in other major cities in the United States; (3) make recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors on how San Francisco can enhance the public process
and oversight, and improve the mechanisms by which the City supports the
economic health and vitality of its diverse cultural life. The Cultural Affairs Task
Force submitted its final report to the Board of Supervisors October 5, 1992. This is
a hearing to consider the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report.
3. Grants for the Arts (GFTA) is a City organization, funded by Hotel Tax
revenues, that provides on-going grant funding to virtually all eligible San
Francisco arts organizations that apply for such funding, in proportion to then-
size. Grants for the Arts funds act as an on-going subsidy. Funds are not granted
on a competitive basis, but all eligible applicants receive funding, subject to the
availability of funds. The three basic eligibility requirements are as follows: (1) the
organization must have 501(c)3 non-profit status or affiliation; (2) the organization
must have a two year stable progr amming history in the area in which it is
applying for funding, and (3) the organization must be located in San Francisco.
4. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for
the Arts program by certain members of the arts community. Mr. Kreidler
advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA funds
could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of comparable
size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist.
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be
allocated to African American arts organizations.
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
66
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
5. The Cultural Affairs Task Force established the following recommended
principles for the City's arts policy:
• The City should strive to achieve cultural equity;
• All forms of City involvement in the arts should include public
participation, such as review panels including members of the public;
• Artistic creativity is a civic good, and its encouragement by government
is a fundamental mark of a civilized society;
• Artistic expression is vital to our civic health. The arts and arts
education are not luxuries;
• A healthy arts environment thrives at all levels, including individual
artists, grassroots and other small and mid-size organizations, and
large arts institutions;
• Keeping all the arts in San Francisco should be a priority, since the arts
are a major employer in the City.
6. Mr. Kreidler reports that in general, GFTA has been successful in
apportioning grants to arts organizations based on size. However, Mr. Kreidler
advises that some variation in the grant amount received by comparable
organizations does exist. However, any such disparity in grant amounts would be
accidental, and not based on the organization's merit, size or seniority. To ensure
that organizations of comparable size receive comparable grants, the Task Force
recommends that the current GFTA progressive formula, under which small
institutions receive a greater percentage of their «mw «1 budget than large ones,
be changed from a set of categories to a graduated curve. Each organization would
receive a grant delineated by this graduated curve, based on the size of the
organization. This graduated curve would resemble an income tax table, Mr.
Kreidler reports. According to the Task Force's report, this would eliminate
sharp drops in funding as organizations grow or shrink incrementally, and
would eliminate disparities between organizations of comparable budget size. Ms.
Kary Schulman of Grants for the Arts advises that the implementation of this
curve is likely to negatively impact certain small and multi-cultural
organizations, which are currently the only organizations that receive funds
above the proposed curve.
7. To further ensure that GFTA funds are distributed equitably, the Task
Force's report recommends the establishment of a panel including artists and
other arts professionals to consider first time applications for Grants for the Arts
funding. Currently, applications are considered by an advisory committee
consisting of San Francisco artists, arts patrons, and business and community
leaders with experience in non-profit and arts management, Ms. Schulman
reports. According to Ms. Schulman, if decisions were made by a panel such as
that recommended by the Task Force, the process may be slower and more costly
to administer. As noted above, GFTA funds are awarded to all eligible applicants,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
67
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
and grant amounts are distributed purely based on a formula, with no
discretionary decisions.
8. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the
Arts. This fund, to be called the Cultural Equity Endowment, would focus on the
following four priorities:
a. Cultural Equity Initiatives;
b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines;
c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and
d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative.
9. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment would be
made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity
Endowment would make purposeful investments for smaller arts groups which
are representative of minority cultures, Mr. Kreidler reports. For example, a
group might receive a sum of money to support start-up costs, or to market their
work for a limited time. Organizations that receive Cultural Equity Endowment
funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA on-going grants in addition to the
competitive grant received from the Cultural Equity Endowment.
10. This proposed Cultural Equity Endowment is targeted to consist of 1.0
percent and 1.5 percent of Hotel Tax funds during the first and second years,
respectively, and two percent of Hotel Tax funds thereafter. The Task Force's
report assumes that the Cultural Equity Endowment would commence in 1993-94,
and that Hotel Tax revenues would increase by five percent annually. Based on
these assumptions, and based on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of
$55,562,400 in 1992-93 generated from the basic 8 percent Hotel Tax rate, the
Budget Analyst estimates that the total dollar amount of the Cultural Equity
Endowment would be as follows:
• $583,405 in FY 1993-94 (one percent of the current estimated revenues
plus a five percent increase);
• $918,863 in FY 1994-95 (1.5 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94 revenues
plus a five percent increase); and
• $1,286,408 in FY 1995-96 (two percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment
would consist of this two percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar
amount of Hotel Tax revenues.
Such an allocation would require that an amendment to the City's Hotel
Tax Ordinance be approved by the Board of Supervisors. According to the Task
Force report, this 1.0, 1.5 and eventually two percent of Hotel Tax Funds would
consist of the following:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
68
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
(i) First, the Task Force requests that $300,000 be allocated to the Cultural
Equity Endowment from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds. The Budget Analyst notes
that all Hotel Tax revenues are allocated based on a formula defined in the
Administrative Code, and no unallocated Hotel Tax funds exist. The portion of
Hotel Tax revenues deposited to the General Fund supports General Fund
activities; and
(ii) Second, to provide the balance of the Cultural Equity Endowment, the
Task Force recommends the reduction, in equal parts, of the allocations to the
following five recipients:
(1) Moscone Convention Center/Brooks Hall/Civic Auditorium, which
currently receives 42 percent;
(2) the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which currently receives 10
percent;
(3) the War Memorial, which currently receives ten percent;
(4) Candlestick Park, which currently receives 6.23 percent; and
(5) the Publicity and Advertising Fund, which currently receives 17 percent.
In FY 1993-94, assuming that $300,000 from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds
supported a portion of the estimated $583,405 FY 1993-94 Cultural Equity
Endowment, the revenues of these five organizations would be reduced by a total of
$283,405, or $56,681 each. If $300,000 from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds are not
allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment, assuming that the overall
percentage goals for the Endowment do not change, the five organizations would
support the entire estimated $583,405 for FY 1993-94, or $116,681 each. The
amounts these five organizations would contribute would increase in FY 1994-95
and FY 1995-96 to support the increase in the Cultural Equity Endowment from 1
percent in FY 1993-94 to 1.5 percent in FY 1994-95 to 2 percent in FY 1995-96 and
thereafter.
The Budget Analyst notes that since the Hotel Tax revenues of the five
recipients would be reduced by the same dollar reduction to support the Cultural
Equity Endowment regardless of the total amount of such funds received by their
organization, the impact of this proposed allocation on the five organizations
would vary significantly. For example, based on the formula contained in the
Task Force's report to support the Cultural Equity Endowment, each
organization's revenues would be reduced by an estimated $56,681 in FY 1993-94.
$56,681 would represent a 1.6 percent reduction in Hotel Tax revenues for
Candlestick Park, which receives the lowest portion of such revenues, but only a
.2 percent reduction in Hotel Tax revenues for the Moscone Center.
The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to these five
organizations would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel
Tax revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.
Instead, the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in
future increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax
revenues included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst
concurs that each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
69
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
amount of their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the
dollar amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not
increase over time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would
decrease because the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In
other words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if
their anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity
Endowment, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure
reductions.
The Budget Analyst further notes that Candlestick Park Hotel Tax funds
are currently entirely allocated to support bond issue debt service. In addition,
approximately $24,121,500 million, or 62 percent of the Moscone Center's
approximate total FY 1992-93 budget of $38,667,000 support the debt service. Any
reduction in Hotel Tax funds that now support the debt service for Candlestick
Park and Moscone Center would need to be paid from the General Fund, since
debt service must be paid.
Finally, the Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not
necessarily increase by 5 percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by
tourists, and tourism generally declines during economic downturns. A 5 percent
annual increase is higher than the current rate of inflation. Thus, an assumption
that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent per year assumes that either the
number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates charged by such hotels will
increase in future years, an assumption that may not be realized because of the
current economic recession. Historically, the 8 percent of the total 11 percent Hotel
Tax has generated the following actual revenues:
FY.
Amount
Percent Increase
1987-88
$44,357,994
n/a
1988-89
48,810,018
10.0 %
1989-90
46,120,913
(5.5)
1990-91
50,588,835
9.7
1991-92
52^89,209
3.6
As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent
annual increase estimated by the Task Force.
(iii) Third, the Task Force recommends a 50 percent reduction of the .5
percent of Hotel Tax Funds now assigned to the Unanticipated Events Fund, and
the allocation of this .25 percent to the Cultural Equity Endowment. The Task
Force's Report appears to recommend that this .25 percent would be in addition to
the 1 percent, 1.5 percent, and 2 percent goals noted above. Ms. Schulman advises
that GFTA generally expends all its Unanticipated Events funds either for City
events, such as parades for successful professional sports teams, or for special
events such as multi-cultural initiatives sponsored by small and medium sized
arts organizations.
BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
70
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
11. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts
Commission, the Arts Commission was recommended as the agency to
administer the Cultural Equity Endowment. Ms. Winship advises that because of
the nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment, the Endowment would be
expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned a
decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition,
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment would
be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates.
12. The Task Force recommends the restoration of the Arts Liaison position
in the Mayor's Office. This Arts Liaison position was eliminated by the Mayor in
the FY 1992-93 budget, resulting in a lay-off. The FY 1992-93 salary range for this
Arts Liaison position, a Mayor's Assistant III, is $47,659 to $50,008 plus fringe
benefits. According to the Task Force's report, 23 City organizations provide arts
services, and each of these 23 organizations has entirely separate policies and
procedures. Without a coordinating organization or individual, according to Mr.
Jeff Jones, arts fundraiser and Task Force member, duplication of services may
occur and arts resources may not be fully utilized.
13. The Task Force recommends that, in addition to the Cultural Equity
Endowment, GFTA funds should be increased by two percent. The Task Force
recommends that such an increase be funded beginning in 1995, when the
Candlestick Park revenue bonds have been retired, using a portion of the 6.23
percent of Hotel Tax funds currently allocated to Candlestick Park
14. The Task Force recommends that a General Obligation bond issue be
placed on the ballot in 1994 to support the capital improvement and infrastructure
needs of the Neighborhood Cultural Centers. Mr. Jones advises that several
recent propositions have proposed bond issues for capital improvements to Davies
Symphony Hall and the Opera House. The Task Force recommends that any
future General Obligation bond measures relating to arts issues include the
Neighborhood Cultural Centers. The Task Force further recommends that
adequate maintenance of the Neighborhood Cultural Centers become a line item
in the City budget. The Task Force did not specify a funding source for this
proposed line item. These recommendations address the Task Force's concern
with cultural and racial equity.
15. The Task Force's report recommends that the Board of Supervisors
request an independent study of the War Memorial Performing Arts Center to
determine whether economies can be realized in the administration of the
Performing Arts Center. Mr. Jones reports that duplication of effort may exist
between the War Memorial administration and the administration of the San
Francisco Symphony and Opera. Ms. Beth Murray of the War Memorial advises
that the War Memorial must have a separate administration from the Symphony
and the Opera, since the War Memorial is a Charter mandated department,
while the Symphony and the Opera conduct businesses entirely separate from the
City.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
71
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
16. Mr. Jones further reports that the Symphony and Opera pay 22tf per
square foot for office space in Davies Symphony Hall and the Opera House, which
is well below the fair market value for civic center office space. Ms. Murray
advises that the Symphony and Opera pay lower office rental rates because those
organizations paid for the conversion of unusable space into office space, creating
capital improvements which benefit the City at no cost to the City. The War
Memorial is therefore collecting rent for space that was not previously usable. The
low rents paid by those organizations are, in part, in exchange for the cost of
capital improvements.
17. The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider the
recommendations for better planning and community outreach by the Yerba
Buena Center for the Arts that are contained in a recent report by Melanie Beene
and Associates which was commissioned by the San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency. This report made a number of recommendations, in the following areas:
Mission Statement; Facilities; Programs; Marketing and Audience Development;
Public, Community and Constituent Relations; Governance; Management; and
Budget Projections. The Redevelopment Agency has established an Action Plan in
response to the recommendations contained in the Melanie Beene and Associates
report.
18. The Task Force recommends that Proposition J Children's Fund
monies be allocated to an Arts Education Program. According to Section 6.415 of
the Charter, services eligible for Children's Fund monies are limited to child
care; job readiness, training and placement programs; health and social services;
educational programs; recreation; delinquency prevention; and library services.
Arts and cultural activities are not specifically included in this list of eligible
programs, but certain arts and cultural activities may fit into the eligible
categories, such as education, recreation, or job training. For example, an Arts
Education Program, such as the one requested to be funded, would most likely fit
under the category of educational programs. Mr. Jones advises that the Task
Force recommends that the definition of eligible services be expanded to include
arts and cultural activities. Such an expanded definition would require a Charter
amendment.
19. According to the Task Force's report, the Task Force was unable to
complete its survey of funding for the arts in San Francisco. The Task Force
therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Budget Analyst to
survey and analyze all City arts funding in order to obtain an accurate picture of
how the City spends its arts dollars.
20. In general, the portion of the Task Force's report regarding funding is
focused on the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment to be funded from a
reallocation of Hotel Tax revenues. However, as mandated by the original
legislation, the report does not provide an overall picture of current or potential
sources of funding for San Francisco arts and cultural activities. In addition, the
report does not contain a comparison of San Francisco arts activities to such
activities in other major cities.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
72
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
21. The Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report was unanimously
approved by the Cultural Affairs Task Force, with one abstention.
BOARD OF fif JPERVTSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7-}
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
TtAm12 -127-92-10
Item:
Description:
Ordinance amending Part III, Municipal Code, by adding
Section 75.1 to require persons filing a statement of
fictitious business name pursuant to California Business
and Professions Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof
of compliance, including payment of all appropriate license
fees, with all applicable sections of Article II of Part III of
the Municipal Code.
The City imposes three types of business registration
requirements. All businesses in San Francisco are required
to obtain a business tax registration certificate from the
Tax Collector, in order for the City to enforce collection of
business taxes (businesses with annual gross receipts under
$15,000 are not required to pay a business tax registration
fee, but still must obtain the certificate). In addition, some,
but not all, businesses are required to obtain regulatory
permits of various kinds, such as Health Department
permits for restaurants or Fire Department permits for gas
stations, which are issued by the individual departments.
Finally, some, but not all, businesses are required to obtain
business licenses, including, for example, licenses for
laundries, sightseeing operations, theatres, automotive
repairs shops, and others.
There is significant overlap between businesses which
require business permits and business licenses, but some
businesses are required to obtain either a permit or a
license. If a business is required to obtain a permit and a
license, the approved permit will be submitted by the
appropriate City department to the Tax Collector pending
payment of any appropriate license fees. Fees for issuance
of business tax registration certificates and business
licenses are collected by the Tax Collector.
In addition, the Recorder administers the filing and
issuance of fictitious business name statements, which are
required of individuals who adopt a name different than
their own as a name for their business.
The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative
Code to require that individuals who file a statement of
fictitious business name with the Recorder must provide
proof of payment of all appropriate business license fees, or
a waiver of any license requirements, from the Tax
Collector before the fictitious business name statement will
be issued.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
74
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Comments:
The proposed ordinance would not require persons filing a
fictitious business name statement to present proof that
they have obtained the required business tax registration
certificate and any required permits.
1. Ms. Anita Jin, Chief of the Business License Division of
the Tax Collector's office, states that currently there is not a
specific procedure for businesses to follow to obtain
business tax registration certificates, any required permits
or business licenses, and fictitious business name (FBN)
statements. She states that since most commercial
establishments in the City use a fictitious business name,
the proposed ordinance would be an effective way to ensure
that businesses do obtain any permits and licenses which
are required under the Administrative Code.
2. The proposed ordinance would require all businesses
filing a FBN statement to present to the Recorder either a
business license issued by the Tax Collector or a waiver of
any applicable license requirements. The City and County
Recorder, Mr. Bruce Jamison, states that in order to enforce
the proposed ordinance effectively with existing resources,
the Recorder's office would require either a business license
or a waiver of the business license for every business Ming
a FBN statement. Mr. Jamison states that a single
document (waiver or license) issued by the Tax Collector
would be needed, since the Recorder is not in a position to
evaluate and enforce the many different business license
requirements of the Administrative Code. However, Ms.
Jin reports that not all businesses are required to obtain
business licenses, and the Tax Collector currently does not
issue waivers to those businesses which are not required to
obtain a business license. Therefore, a waiver of business
license requirements is not available from the Tax Collector
under existing procedures.
3. Under Article 12-B, Section 1003 of the Administrative
Code, all businesses are required to obtain a business tax
registration certificate from the Tax Collector and pay a
business registration fee (although businesses with annual
gross receipts of less than $15,000 are exempt from the fee).
Therefore, a business tax registration certificate is required
to be issued by the Tax Collector to all businesses in San
Francisco. The proposed ordinance would not require
businesses to present evidence that they have met the
business tax registration requirements of Section 1003 of
the Administrative Code.
4. The Budget Analyst notes that, since all businesses are
required to obtain a business tax registration certificate but
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7S
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
not all businesses are required to obtain a business permit
or a business license, a more effective means to ensure that
all appropriate permit, license, and business tax
registration requirements are met before a FBN statement
is filed would be as follows:
1) Require businesses to present evidence to the Tax
Collector that they have obtained any required permits and
any required business licenses (which are issued through
the Tax Collector's Office), before a business tax
registration certificate is issued or renewed.
2) Require businesses filing a FBN statement with the
Recorder to present the business tax registration certificate
issued by the Tax Collector.
However, Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's Office
states that the Tax Collector would not be able to monitor
compliance with all of the permit and licensing
requirements of the Administrative Code, as recommended
above, because 1) the issuance of permits is sometimes
within the control of the Tax Collector, but sometimes it is
solely within the discretion of individual departments, and
2) because approximately 8,000 businesses are initiated or
change ownership in any given year, and the Tax Collector
could not enforce compliance with all permit and business
license requirements for all of these businesses with
existing resources.
For these reasons, Mr. Sullivan, on behalf of the Tax
Collector's Office, has requested that this matter be
continued for two weeks, so that the Tax Collector can
evaluate alternative strategies to enhance compliance with
the business registration requirements of the
Administrative Code.
5. Ms. Jin indicates that the individual City departments
that issue permits, such as the Fire and Health
departments, are responsible to inspect businesses for
compliance with permit requirements. Under the
Administrative Code, enforcement of business license
requirements is delegated to the Police Department, whose
officers are instructed to inspect businesses for the
appropriate business license as they patrol their beat. The
Tax Collector is responsible to enforce compliance with the
business tax.
6. Mr. Andrew Bacigalupi in the Investigations Division of
the Tax Collector's Office states that field investigators
from his agency inspect businesses for required permits and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
76
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Recommendation:
licenses, but that the investigators' activities focus
primarily on financial audits of businesses for compliance
with the City's business tax. Mr. Bacigalupi states that, in
his opinion, certain areas of the City do have large numbers
of businesses that have not obtained the appropriate
permits and licenses. However, Mr. Bacigalupi states that
the business tax registration certificate, which was enacted
in 1988, is also unfamiliar to many San Francisco business
owners. Mr. Bacigalupi states, in his opinion, the City's
enforcement of all permit, license, and business tax
registration requirements would be strengthened by
increased consolidation of these requirements.
7. Business license fees vary considerably based on the
type of business license which is required, ranging from $20
annually for fumigation firms to $2,175 annually for each
garbage truck operated by a sanitation and refuse disposal
company, as of July 14, 1992.
8. The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative
Code by adding Section 75.1. The Budget Analyst notes
that, as of July 14, 1992, the Administrative Code already
contained an existing Section 75.1, which required a license
fee surcharge for calendar year 1973. Therefore, a new
Section number should be assigned for the proposed
ordinance, or the existing Section 75.1 should be repealed.
Continue the proposed ordinance for two weeks, as
requested by the Tax Collector's Office.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
77
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Items 13. 14. 15 and 16 - Files 101-92-10.1. 101-92-10.2. 38-92-27. 101-92-10.
Departments;
Items:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Bureau of Architecture
San Francisco Public Library
Item 16 - Resolution (File 101-92-10) incorporating by
reference findings made by the Library Commission and the
Arts Commission and adopting further findings pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act relating to the
appropriation of funds for the new Main Library Project, as
analyzed in the San Francisco Main Library Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Case No. 90.808E.
Item 13 - Ordinance (File 101-92-10.1) appropriating
$86,213,304 for capital improvement project (Public Library
Main and Branches) 1988 Library Improvement Bond
Program for fiscal year 1992-93.
Item 14 - Ordinance (File 101-92-10.2) appropriating
$3,200,241 of interest earnings for capital improvement
project (Public Library Main and Branches) 1988 Library
Improvement Bond Program for fiscal year 1992-93.
Item 15 - Resolution (38-92-27) accepting a gift to the San
Francisco Public Library in the amount of $9,614,568 from the
Library Foundation of San Francisco to fund building
enhancements for the new Main Library.
A total of $99,028,113 would be authorized and/or
appropriated as follows:
1988 Library Improvement Bond
Funds (Item 13) $86,213,304
1988 Library Improvement Bond Funds
Interest Earnings (Item 14) 3,200,241
Library Foundation of
San Francisco (Item 15) 9.614.568
Total $99,028,113
The proposed resolution (File 101-92-10) would incorporate the
findings made in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the new Main Library. The draft EIR was issued
in November, 1991.
The proposed ordinances (Files 101-92-10.1 and 101-92-10.2)
which would appropriate Library Improvement Bond funds
and related interest earnings, and the proposed resolution
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
78
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
(File 38-92-27) which would authorize the Public Library to
accept a gift from the Library Foundation of San Francisco,
would provide funds for the following:
Construction Costs:
Construction Contract
$86,619,800
Construction Contingencies
2,792,709
Library Project Management
251,700
DPW Construction and
Project Management*
4,388,787
Architectural and
Engineering -
Contract Modifications
860,800
Construction Management -
Contract Modifications
272,300
Art Enrichment
840,000
Utilities
400,000
Collection Relocation
500,000
Testing and Specialized
Inspection
800,000
Infrastructure Repair
530,000
DPW Architectural and
Engineering Services -
Branch Libraries
772.017
Subtotal-Construction Costs
$99,028,113
Building Enhancements (Funded by the library
Foundation of San Francisco ), included in the
$86,619300 award of construction contract above:
Signage and Graphics
$189,262
Chalk and Tackboards
93,000
Security System
661,856
Windowshades and Blinds
140,435
Lockers
91,776
Library Stacks
2,280,339
Book Conveyor
625,705
Bookcases
1,248,452
Carpet
1,305,885
Auditorium Fixtures
2,279,580
Pioneer Monument
Relocation
698.278
Subtotal-Building
Enhancements
$9,614,568
* Includes $200,000 budgeted for a work order to the City Attorney's Office. See
Comment No. 4.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
79
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Comments: 1. The proposed resolution (File 101-92-10), which would
adopt the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the new Main Library, would conclude that the
Board of Supervisors finds that the benefits of the new Main
Library project would override the unmitigated adverse effect
on the environment. These unmitigated adverse affects
include contribution to traffic, cumulative passenger loading
on MUNI, BART and other transit carriers, and a potential
of increased pollution. The proposed resolution (File 101-92-
10) would also incorporate the mitigation measures which
are proposed in the FEIR, which relate to archaeological
monitoring of the site excavation, construction noise,
temporary pedestrian traffic relocation and sprinkling the
demolition sites with water to lessen potential air quality
impacts.
2. The City Planning Commission certified the FEIR on
February 27, 1992, and on May 7, 1992 found the new Main
Library project is in conformity with the eight priority
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 relating to the Master
Plan. The Arts Commission approved the FEIR on April 6,
1992. The Library Commission also approved the FEIR on
April 17, 1992, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, which specifies actions to be taken to implement
the mitigation measures included in the FEIR.
3. As noted on the prior page, $86,619,800 would be used to
fund the construction contract for the new Main Library.
According to Mr. Russ Abel of the Department of Public
Works (DPW) Bureau of Architecture, the construction
contract was subject to a competitive bid process. The
amount budgeted for the construction contract-related
contingencies, of $3,044,419, represents approximately 3.5
percent of the total construction contract of $86,619,800. Mr.
Abel anticipates that another supplemental appropriation
ordinance (in addition to Item 14), funded through interest
earnings from the Library Improvement Bond Funds, would
be submitted to the Board of Supervisors at a later date to fund
any remaining contingency costs. Huber, Hunt and Nichols,
the proposed construction contractor, is the low-bidder for the
new Main Library. The Branch Library construction
contract(s) would be put out to bid at a later date. According
to Mr. Ed Lee of the Human Rights Commission (HRC),
although Huber, Hunt and Nichols is not a City-certified
MBE, WBE or LBE firm, none of the bidders for the
construction contract were City-certified. Mr. Lee reports
that Huber, Hunt and Nichols has used a good faith effort in
using MBE and WBE subcontractors, and has specified that
of the total proposed construction contract of $86,619,800, 14
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
80
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
percent of the total contract (approximately $12.1 million)
would be subcontracted to MBE firms, and 2 percent
(approximately $1.7 million) of the total contract would be
provided to WBE firms. Therefore, based upon the use of
MBE and WBE subcontractors, Mr. Lee reports that the firm
of Huber, Hunt and Nichols has been recommended by the
Human Rights Commission.
4. The $4,388,787 budgeted for DPW Construction and Project
Management Services includes $4,188,787 for DPW
Construction and Project Management Services, and a work
order of $200,000 for the City Attorney's Office. The proposed
funds would be used for existing DPW bond-funded
personnel. Mr. Abel reports that at the end of the project,
these existing bond funded staff would either be terminated
or reassigned to other DPW bond-funded projects. The
following services would be provided:
Average Hourly
Task
Rate
Project Management
$95.66
On-Site Inspection
84.69
Progress Payments
77.86
Change Orders
74.30
Project Close-Out
110.68
The $200,000 budgeted for a lump-sum work order to the City
Attorney's Office is to evaluate claims and other related legal
issues as a result of the construction and post-construction
activities. It is estimated that 120 construction change orders
would be issued during construction.
5. The DPW has indicated that of the $4,388,787 for DPW
Construction and Project Management, a total of $834,128
would be required for FY 1992-93, including $100,000 for
services provided by the City Attorney's Office. During fiscal
years 1993-94 and FY 1994-95, the remaining $3,554,659,
including $100,000 for the City Attorney's Office, would be
spent. Therefore, $3,554,659 should be reserved, including
$100,000 for the City Attorney's Office, pending the details of
the hours needed and the annual salary standardization
increases, for FY 1993-94 and FY 1994-95. Mr. Norman
Karasick, City Architect, disagrees with this
recommendation. Mr. Karasick reports that these DPW
Construction and Project Management funds are needed in
order to ensure the timely completion of the project, and Mr.
Karasick reports that the DPW is relatively certain on the
estimated number of staff hours needed.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
6. The $251,700 budgeted for Library Project Management
services would be used for the following:
Librarv Personnel
FY 1993-94
(3 months)*
FY 1994-95
(12 months)*
3638 Chief Librarian
3632 Librarian II
1446 Secretary II
$25,121
16,826
7.084
$102^95
70,670
29.704
Subtotal
$49,031
$202,669
Total
$251,700
*Includes fringe benefits.
Ms. Kathy Page of the Public Library reports that these funds
would not be used until FY 1993-94 and FY 1994-95.
Therefore, the $251,700 budgeted for Library Project
Management services should be reserved pending annual
salary standardization increases, and specific staffing
requirements.
7. The $860,800 budgeted for Architectural and Engineering
Contract Modifications would be used for contract
modifications which have been requested by the
Architectural and Engineering firms, Pei, Cobb, Freed &
Partners, and Simon, Martin, Winkelstein and Moris.
Specifically, the funds would be used for Architectural and
Engineering services for the following:
Alternate Bid Items
Building System Upgrades
Brooks Hall Ramp/Fulton Street
Base Isolation Engineering
Drawing Reproductions
Contingencies
Total
$181,505
44,480
65,405
89,227
90,000
390.183
$860,800
8. The $272,300 budgeted for Construction Management
Contract Modifications would be used for contract
modifications which have been requested by the Construction
Management firm, O'Brien Krietzberg. Specifically, these
funds would be used for the following construction
management services:
Archeological Services
Contingencies
Total
$188,538
83.762
$272,300
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
82
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
9. The $840,000 budgeted for Art Enrichment services would
be used to provide payment to four artists whose work will be
incorporated into the construction phase of the project.
According to Ms. Susan Pontius of the Arts Commission, the
proposed supplemental funds would be used to continue
funding for the four artists who have been selected to provide
art enrichment services (including artwork construction,
installation and related costs) and also for Arts Commission
administrative services related to the new Main Library.
Specifically, the proposed funds would be used as follows:
Alice Aycock
Stairway and Hanging Sculpture $378,683
Ann Hamilton
Diagonal Core Wall Installation 251,371
Nayland Blake
Light Wall 59,245
Lothar Baumgarten
Carved Granite and Painting 135.131
Subtotal Payments to Artists $824,430
Arts Commission Administrative Costs
Inclu des funding for Curator lis (.19
FTEs) with related overhead costs 15.570
Total Art Enrichment $840,000
10. The $400,000 budgeted for Utilities would be provided to
Pacific, Gas & Electric to install the electrical work into the
new Main Library during construction. According to Mr.
Abel, this estimate has been provided by Pacific, Gas &
Electric.
11. The $500,000 budgeted for Collection Relocation costs
would fund the relocation of the Library collection from the
existing Main Library, and the collection in storage at the
Presidio to the new Main Library. According to Ms. Page,
the $500,000 estimate was based upon estimates provided by
other major libraries, including Los Angeles and Chicago,
which recently relocated their collections. Ms. Page
anticipates that a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
relocation contract and the selection of a contractor would not
occur until FY 1994-95. Therefore, the $500,000 budgeted for
relocation costs should be reserved pending the selection of a
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
RT
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
consultant, the MBE/WBE status of the consultant, and
finalized cost details.
12. The $800,000 budgeted for Testing and Specialized
Inspection costs would be provided both for City staff and to
the existing Construction Management firm, O'Brien
Krietzberg. The breakdown of the $800,000 is as follows:
DPW Personnel
DPW Materials Testing Lab Services $211,000
DPW Inspection Personnel Costs
FY 1992-93 25,293
FY 1993-94 to FY 1994-95 107,827
O'Brien Krietzberg 455.880
Total Testing and Specialized Inspection $800,000
According to Mr. Abel, the City lacks the necessary
machinery to complete all of the Specialized Inspection, such
as drying shrinkage testing, air dry unit weight of concrete
tests and welding inspection. O'Brien Krietzberg would be
selecting a subcontractor to perform these services. Included
in the $455,880 budgeted for O'Brien Krietzberg would be a 10
percent fee, or $45,588, which would be retained by the
consultant, with a balance of $410,292 for a subconsultant to
accomplish the testing work. Mr. Abel reports that the City
has not issued its own Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for
these Specialized Inspection services because the
construction schedule has already been established and the
RFQ process could not be done in a timely manner. However,
because the subconsultant has not yet been selected, the
$455,880 should be reserved pending the selection of a
subcontractor, the MBE/WBE status of the consultant and
finalized cost details. In addition, $107,827 should be
reserved for DPW Inspection personnel during FY 1993-94
and FY 1994-95 pending annual salary standardization
increases, and specific staffing requirements.
13. The $530,000 budgeted for Infrastructure Repair would be
used for DPW personnel to repair and replace sidewalks and
roads which may be damaged during construction.
However, specific staffing requirements have not yet been
determined. Therefore, the $530,000 budgeted for
Infrastructure Repair should be reserved pending details of
specific repairs required and staffing requirements.
14. The $772,017 budgeted for the Architectural and
Engineering Services at the Branch Libraries would be used
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
84
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
for DPW personnel during beginning in FY 1993-94. Mr.
Abel reports that the budget for design, administration and
construction contracts has not yet been determined.
Therefore, the $772,017 budgeted for DPW Architectural and
Engineering Services should be reserved pending a specific
budget, including salary standardization details.
15. General Obligation Bond Funds cannot be used to fund
certain building enhancements such as furniture and
equipment. Therefore, the Library Foundation of San
Francisco, through fundraising efforts, would provide these
building enhancements items. These items would be
purchased under the construction contract. According to
Ms. Page, all of the above -lis ted building enhancement items
include installation and maintenance costs. In addition, Ms.
Page reports that the $698,278 budgeted for the Pioneer
Monument relocation would be provided to the construction
contractor. The Pioneer Monument would be relocated to
Fulton Street, between Hyde Street and Larkin Street. The
FEER, which the proposed resolution would adopt (File 101-
92-10) would also find that the Pioneer Monument does not
contribute to the historical and cultural significance of the
Civic Center area, and therefore, its relocation would not
have a significant negative impact on the environment.
Reco mmen d a tions: 1. Approval of the proposed resolution (101-92-10), under
which the Pioneer Monument would be relocated, is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
2. Amend the proposed ordinance (101-92-10.1) to reserve
funds totalling $6,172,083 from Library Improvement
Bond Funds for the following items:
• DPW Construction and Project
Management (See Comment No. 5) $3,554,659
• Library Project Management
(See Comment No. 6) 251,700
• Collection Relocation
(See Comment No. 11) 500,000
• Specialized Inspection Consultant
(See Comment No. 12) 455,880
• DPW Inspection Costs
(See Comment No. 12) 107,827
• DPW Infrastructure Repair
(See Comment No. 13) 530,000
• DPW Architecture and
Engineering Services
Branch Libraries
(See Comment No. 14) $772.017
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Total Reserved Funds $6,172,083
As previously noted, Mr. Karasick disagrees with the
recommendation to reserve the $3,554,659 for DPW
Construction and Project Management of the $6,172,083 in
total recommended reserved funds.
3. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-92-10.1) as
amended.
4. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-92-10.2).
5. Approve the proposed ordinance (38-92-27).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
86
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item 17 -File 28-92-12
Department: Department of Public Works (DPW)
Item:
Amount:
Resolution authorizing the Director of DPW to take necessary
measures to protect the health, welfare and property of the
citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary work
to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins,
side sewer vents and fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian
traffic.
$27,309
Source of Funds Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund
Description: The City Charter requires property owners to maintain
sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and
fencing in front of and around their property. If there is a
complaint to the DPW about a damaged sidewalk, the DPW
notifies the appropriate property owner who in turn has 60
days to abate the problem. If the damage is not repaired
within 60 days, the DPW conducts the necessary repairs and
charges the property owner for the costs incurred. The funds
used to conduct the necessary repairs comes from the
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund. When the
property owners reimburse the City for the expenses to
conduct the repairs, the monies are deposited into the
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund.
The DPW normally issues an annual contract to a private
company to provide the repair services. However, the DPW
has a backlog of approximately 2,300 damaged properties and
has not selected a contractor for FY 1992-93. Thus, in
accordance with Section 6.3 of the City's Administrative
Code, the DPW has executed an emergency contract in the
amount of $27,309 with Tarn L. Williams Concrete
Contractors and Associates, a City certified WBE firm, to
conduct emergency repairs to various damaged sidewalks,
curbs, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and fencing.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
87
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item 18 - File 97-92-63
Note: This item was transferred from the November 17, 1992 Administration and
Oversight Committee Meeting.
1. The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco Administrative
Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which establishes and governs the
maintenance of the Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund,
by providing for the balance of all funds remaining in the Fund at the close of each
Fiscal Year to be carried forward and accumulated in said Fund.
2. The Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund (CATV
Fund) was established by the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of receiving 0.2
percent of the Franchise Fee from Viacom which was to be used for development of
municipal, educational and public access to cable television and related
programming. Section 10.117-68 currently provides that the balance of
appropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year
shall be deemed to have been provided for a specific purpose and shall be carried
forward and accumulated in the CATV Fund for the purposes for which the CATV
Fund was established. Section 10.117-68 also provides that the balance of
unappropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year
shall be transferred to the General Fund as franchise and permit fee revenue.
3. The proposed ordinance would delete the language in Section 10.117-68
that currently permits the transfer of the balance of unappropriated funds
remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal to the General Fund
resulting in the requirement that all funds, either appropriated or unappropriated,
be retained in the CATV Fund and carried forward to the next fiscal year.
Therefore, transfers of unappropriated funds from the CATV Fund to the General
Fund would not be automatic in the future and would instead require specific
authorization by the Board of Supervisors.
Comments
1. Ms. Susan Maher of the Controller's Office reports that although the
current provisions of Section 10.117-68 provide that the balance of unappropriated
funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year shall be
transferred to the General Fund, no such transfers have been made in the past,
since the establishment of the CATV Fund in 1987.
2. At their meeting of October 27, 1992 the Administration and Oversight
Committee held a hearing (File 100-92-2.1) to consider pending revisions to the
appropriations of the Department of the Board of Supervisors totaling $130,000 in
reductions. The $130,000 included a total of $74,096 in reductions to Official
Advertising ($15,294), Reproduction ($20,000), Mail Services ($5,000), Data Word
Processing Equipment Maintenance ($3,000) and a reduction in the Budget
Analyst's contract ($30,802). The $55,904 balance of the $130,000 reduction
($130,000 less $74,096) was to be met by an $8,208 increase in revenues and a
transfer of funds from the CATV Fund of $47,696.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
3. The Board of Supervisors adopted a motion requesting the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors to undertake the following to eliminate the $82,304 budgetary
shortfall ($130,000 less the $47,696 transfer from the CATV Fund) that otherwise
would have required increased fees of $8,208 and expenditure reductions totaling
$74,096:
A. Take all necessary steps to provide more flexibility to the Board of
Supervisors to make use of a portion of the accumulated unspent
resources in the CATV Fund without reducing current appropriations for
educational access and public access.
B. Ask the Controller to prepare necessary revisions in the Board's
1992-93 budget to maintain the level of services from the Budget Analyst
provided in the budget adopted in July 1992, and to restore
appropriations to the Board's legal advertising, reproduction, and mail
services accounts so that the public's right to be fully informed about
proposed legislation will not be impaired, and to avoid imposing
excessive fees on members of the public.
4. The Controller's Office is currently processing the transfer of $47,696 from
the CATV Fund. The CATV Fund would still have a balance of $99,494 after
effecting the transfer of $47,696. An additional transfer of $82,304 from the CATV
Fund would still leave a CATV Fund unappropriated balance of $17,190.
5. Mr. John Taylor, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, indicates that the
proposed ordinance would clarify the Administrative Code regarding the CATV
Fund year-end balance by deleting the language that requires the automatic
transfer of the unappropriated balance of funds in the CATV Fund to the General
Fund. Mr. Taylor states that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, additional,
legislation to transfer funds from the CATV Fund to the General Fund will be
submitted for consideration by the Finance Committee and the full Board of
Supervisors in order to eliminate the $82,304 balance of budgetary reductions and
fee increases to the Board's 1992-93 budget.
Itecom m endation
Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
89
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Item 19 -File 172-92-18
Department:
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Fire Department
Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to execute hold
harmless agreements to hold the manufacturers of jet skis
harmless from all claims arising out of the use or operation
of jet skis loaned to the Fire Department.
The San Francisco retail firm, Your Scooter Shop, that sells
motorcycles and jet skis, has agreed to loan two jet skis to
the Fire Department for use in ocean and bay rescue
operations.
Your Scooter Shop will loan the jet skis to the Fire
Department at no charge and with no obligation to
purchase the jet skis. However, the Fire Department will be
responsible for routine maintenance and for repairing any
damage incurred to the jet skis beyond normal wear and
tear, before returning the jet skis to Your Scooter Shop at
the end of the loan period. The Fire Department states that
routine maintenance is minimal and is performed by the
Firefighters at Station 16, where the jet skis are located.
The Fire Department has had two jet skis for the last year
that were on loan from Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
1. The Fire Department reports that although the proposed
resolution requests authorization to execute hold harmless
provisions with jet ski manufacturers, the intent of the
proposed resolution is to authorize execution of a hold
harmless agreement with only the retail firm of Your
Scooter Shop. Therefore the proposed resolution should be
amended to l imi t authorization to execute a hold harmless
agreement with Your Scooter Shop.
2. According to the Fire Department, no specific language
has yet been drafted for the hold harmless agreement. Your
Scooter Shop has only indicated that a hold harmless
agreement is required as part of the agreement to loan the
two jet skis to the Fire Department but has not provided
specific language for the hold harmless agreement.
3. Mr. George Riley of the City Attorney's Office is working
with the Fire Department and Your Scooter Shop to draft
the appropriate language for the hold harmless agreement.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
90
Memo to Finance Committee
December 9, 1992
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to limit the authorization
to execute a hold harmless agreement to Your Scooter Shop.
2. Approval of the proposed resolution as amended is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
lairvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Q1
Sf
^q CALENDAR^
MEETING OF
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL
PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN D0Cl !MPN] TS DEPT.
DEC 2 2 1992
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN - ITEM 10 ' w
SAN FRANCISCO
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON PUBLIC LIBRARY
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate
item.
(a) File 146-91-4.3 . [AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan] Resolution authorizing
amendment to the AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan for the City and County of San
Francisco, as adopted by Resolution No. 125-91, to delete four San Francisco
DPH/Community Public Health Center Services Projects, to revise nine San
Francisco DPH/Community Public Services Project budgets, and to authorize
expenditure of $102,357 of interest earned on non-hospital AB 75 Capital
Outlay funds for capital improvement projects for San Francisco
DPH/Community Public Health Services. (Department of Public Health)
ACTION: Recommended.
(b) File 150-91-3.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing Recreation and
Park Department to accept and expend grant funds in the amount of $150,000
which includes $10,050 for indirect costs, from the Habitat Conservation Fund
Program of the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 for India Basin
Wetlands Restoration Phase I Project; companion measure to File 150-91-3.
(Recreation and Park Department)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New
title: "Authorizing Recreation and Park Department to accept
and expend grant funds in the amount of $150,000 which includes
$10,050 for indirect costs, from the Habitat Conservation Fund
Program of the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 for
India Basin Wetlands Restoration Phase I Project; placing $115,000
on reserve."
(c) File 25-92-34 . [Contract] Resolution concurring with the Controller's
certification that Vocational Training and Counseling Services for the
Independent Living Skills Project can be practically performed at the
Department of Social Services by private contractor for lower cost than
similar work services performed by City and County employees. (Department
of Social Services)
ACTION: Recommended.
(d) File 172-92-17 . [Contract] Resolution approving the contract between the
City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health and HHL
Financial Services, Inc., to provide uncompensated care recovery services.
(Department of Public Health)
ACTION: Recommended.
(e) File 146-92-15.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, in the of amount $258,673, for the
Women's Institute and Marin County, for substance abuse treatment for people
of color (contractor) Women's Institute for Mental Health/Iris Center and Ark
of Refuge. (Department of Public Health)
ACTION: Release of $258,673 recommended. Filed.
REGULAR CALENDAR
2. File 97-92-68 . [Colorado Products Ban] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by
adding Sections 10.240 through 10.247 to prohibit departments of the City and
County from purchasing any commodities that have been produced or manufactured
in the State of Colorado; authorizing the Purchaser to establish rules and regulations
to carry out purposes of ordinance; providing for penalties to ensure compliance with
the ordinance; requiring the Purchaser to provide implementation reports annually to
the Board of Supervisors. (Supervisor Britt)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing some title, as presented by Supervisor
Britt, adopted. Further amended. (See file for details.) Recommended
as amended. New title: "Amending Administrative Code by adding
Sections 10.240 through 10.247 to prohibit departments of the City and
County from knowingly purchasing any commodities that have been
produced or manufactured in the State of Colorado; authorizing the
Purchaser to establish rules and regulations to carry out purposes of
ordinance; providing for penalties to ensure compliance with the
ordinance; requiring the Purchaser to provide implementation reports
annually to the Board of Supervisors."
3. File 101-92-16 . [Travel Allowances to Colorado Not Permitted] Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 249-92, the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93,
by adding thereto Section 31, which prohibits the allowance of travel expenses
incurred in traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado. (Supervisor Britt)
ACTION: Recommended.
4. File 197-92-5 . [Cultural Affairs Task Force Implementation Committee] Ordinance
constituting the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the task
force's implementation committee, with the addition of the Chief Administrative
Officer or his representative, for the purpose of developing a legislative proposal for
the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund Program and for the purpose of
developing proposals to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs
Task Force final report. (Supervisor Hallinan)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Continued to December 30, 1992, meeting.
5. File 127-92-11 . [Hotel Tax] Ordinance amending the San Francisco Municipal Code,
Part HI, Section 515 to create a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the
percentage of the Hotel Tax allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks
Hall, Civic Auditorium, Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and
Advertising Fund, and Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of
the General Fund, and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax funds are no longer
necessary for Candlestick Park as set forth herein, a portion of such funds be
allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain publicity and advertising
purposes. (Supervisor Hallinan)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Continued to December 30, 1992, meeting.
6. File 127-92-2.1 . [Stadium Operator Admission Tax] Ordinance amending Part IE,
San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 807 providing an exemption from
the payment of the stadium operator admission tax, by extending for one year,
through December 31, 1993, the exemption from the payment of admission taxes on
tickets sold at $17.99 or less. (Supervisor Alioto)
ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting.
7. File 101-92-15 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $37,889,
Department of Public Health, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe
benefits, other contractual services, auto mileage, travel, training, other current
services, telephone, materials and supplies, data/word processing equipment
purchase/lease and reproduction. (Supervisor Alioto)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $37,634, Department of Public Health, for permanent
salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits, other contractual services,
auto mileage, travel, training, other current services, telephone,
materials and supplies, data/word processing equipment purchase/lease
and reproduction; placing $7,500 on reserve."
8. File 102-92-7 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 250-92
(Annual Salary Ordinance) reflecting the addition of two new positions in the
Department of Public Health. (Supervisor Alioto)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Recommended.
9. File 265-92-1 . [Interactive Media Industry] Resolution declaring it to be the policy
of the Board of Supervisors to foster the growth of the Interactive Media Industry in
the San Francisco Bay Area and to take various actions in furtherance of the growth
of this industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. (Supervisors Gonzalez, Alioto,
Shelley, Migden)
(Transferred from Economic and Social Policy Committee 12/8/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended.
10. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
(Cont'd from 12/2/92)
ACTION: Hearing held. Filed.
11. File 161-92-5.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving an
amendment to the budget of the Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1992-93.
(Supervisor Gonzalez)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Continued to the Call of the Chair.
12. File 101-92-20 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $83,277, Sheriff
Department, for professional services (Family Violence Prevention Fund).
(Supervisor Achtenberg)
ACTION: Recommended.
13. File 97-92-63 . [Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund)
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which
establishes and governs the maintenance of the Cable Television Access
Development and Programming Fund, by providing for the balance of all funds
remaining in the fund at the close of each Fiscal Year to be carried forward and
accumulated in said fund. (Clerk of the Board)
(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 -
Fiscal Impact)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Recommended.
14. File 97-92-67 . [Board of Supervisors - Fees] Ordinance amending Administrative
Code by adding Section 8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing copies of
documents relating to the business of the Board of Supervisors. (Clerk of the Board)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Amending Administrative Code by adding Section 8.37 thereto,
authorizing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to collect fees to
defray the cost of mailing and providing copies of documents relating to
the business of the Board of Supervisors, and authorizing the Clerk of the
Board to waive, in exigent circumstances, the fees authorized by this
section."
15. File 28-92-12 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the
Department of Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the health,
welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary
work to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and
fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. (Department of Public Works)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Recommended.
16. File 114-92-7 . [Earthquake Safety Program] Ordinance amending the Building
Code, by amending Section 104(b) to provide that where a building permit application
is filed on or after January 1, 1992 to repair a City-owned building under the
Bond-Funded Public Safety Improvement Projects, the building's existing electrical,
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or life-safety systems are not required to
comply with this code if the system complies with the code in effect at the time of
its construction or installation, the system is safe to continue to operate, and the
system is not relocated, altered for reuse, or expanded; adopting findings.
(Department of Public Works)
(Transferred from Econ. & Social Policy Committee 12/8/92 - Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Recommended.
17. File 51-92-3. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty.
(Various) (Cont'd from 12/2/92)
July, August, September 1992
ACTION: Hearing held. Resolution prepared in and reported out of Committee
entitled: "[Reimbursement to Employees] Authorizing reimbursement for
cost of personal property of City and County employees damaged or
stolen in the line of duty." Recommended.
18. File 64-92-24.1 . [Lease of Real Property] Resolution authorizing an amendment to
an existing lease of real property at 10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 260, for the
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families. (Real Estate Department)
ACTION: Recommended.
f
h
CITY AND COUNTY
(PuSCic Library, 'Documents (Dept.
WFI^C Jane Hudson
OF SAN FRANCISCO
yX DOCMMFNTS DEPT.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEC 18 1992
BUDGET ANALYST S AN FRANCISCO
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
December 14, 1992
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst a /vi^a^^/cas
SUBJECT: December 16, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
Item la -File 146-91 -4.3
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
Item: Resolution authorizing an amendment to the AB 75 Capital
Outlay Plan for the City and County of San Francisco, as
adopted by Resolution 125-91, to delete four San Francisco
DPH/Community Public Health Center Services Projects, to
revise nine San Francisco DPH/Community Public Services
Project budgets, and to authorize expenditure of $102,357 of
interest earned on non-hospital AB 75 Capital Outlay funds
for capital improvement projects for San Francisco
DPH/Community Public Health Services (CPHS).
Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation
(Resolution 125-91) authorizing DPH to adopt the AB 75
Capital Outlay Plan and authorizing DPH to expend the
grant allocation of $3,991,643 from the AB 75 Capital Outlay
Fund for County and private hospital and non-hospital
capital outlay purposes, including facility repairs,
renovation, remodeling, expansion, acquisition and
equipment needs. The State requires that no less than 67
percent of the funds be allocated to hospitals and no more
than 33 percent be allocated to non-hospital facilities,
including outpatient clinics, mental health facilities, public
health clinics, and community or free clinics.
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
On February 4, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved
Resolution 125-91 granting permission to submit the San
Francisco's AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan which included 13
CPHS projects totaling $963,263 and to expend grant funds
from the AB 75 Capital Outlay Fund of the State for capital
improvement projects. DPH proposes to amend a section of
the City's AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan to delete four of the 13
projects and revise the remaining nine project budgets.
The proposed resolution would authorize these amendments
to the City's AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan. In addition, the
Department is requesting authorization to spend $102,357 of
interest earnings on non-hospital AB 75 Capital Outlay funds
to expand and renovate clinic space at the Tom Waddell
Clinic.
Comment: Attached is a summary of the proposed deleted and revised
projects as submitted by DPH.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Attachment
SUMMARY OF DELETED AND REVISED PROJECTS
Project
#1 HVAC System (HC #1 )
#2 Exam Rooms (HC #1)
#3 HVAC System (HC #2)
#4 Fire Alarm System
#5 Supply Transport-Dumbwaiter
Replacement (HC #2)
#6 HVAC System (HC #3)
#7 Expand Clinic Space (HC #4)
#8 Exam Rooms (2) (HC #5)
#9 Supply Transport-Dumbwaiter
Replacement (HC #5)
#10 Public Health Satellite
Clinic (YGC)
#11 Telephone Conversion At
Health Centers
#12 MIS Patient Records
(Administration)
#13 Expand/Renovate Clinic Space
(Tom Waddell Clinic)
Total
Previous
Budget
73,424
60,000
52,305
17,000
24,000
52,305
7,400
40,000
24,000
$ 60,000
3260,000
$210,079
Revised Reason For
Budget Deletion/Change
$ 97,000 Revised estimated costs.
$ 85,000 Revised estimated costs.
$ 42,000 Revised estimated costs.
S No longer a priority.
$ Repaired; replacement not
needed.
$ 26,000 Revised estimated costs.
S 9,000 Revised estimated costs.
S 70,000 Revised estimated costs.
$ Repaired; replacement not
needed.
$119,000 Remodel newly-acquired
building.
5430,000 Revised estimated costs.
Completed with other
funds.
$ 82,750 S 85,263 Departmental priority;
revised estimated costs.
$965,263 $963,263
NOTE : Interest earned on non-hospital funds through 05-31-92 totaling
$102,357.00 will be added to Project #13 for a total of $187,620.00 of AB 75
Capital Outlay funds used for Project #13.
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item lb -File 150-91-3.1
Department
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds
Project:
Description:
Required Match:
Project Budget
Recreation and Park Department
Resolution authorizing the Recreation and Park Department
to accept and expend grant funds, including $10,050 in
indirect costs, for India Basin Wetlands Restoration Phase I
Project.
$150,000
January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1997
Habitat Conservation Fund, California Department of Parks
and Recreation
India Basin Wetlands Restoration, Phase I
The State has enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act
of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for
grants to local agencies to acquire and/or develop facilities for
public recreational and fish and wildlife habitat protection
purposes. The proposed grant funds would be used for Phase
I of the India Basin Wetlands Restoration Project. Phase I of
the proposed project would include the removal of submerged
debris and scuttled vessels which have been dumped and
abandoned at the water's edge. Phase II of the proposed
project, which the Recreation and Park Department would
begin upon the completion of Phase I in FY 1992-93, would
include landscaping of inland areas and restoration of
wetland and shoreline habitats.
The India Basin land was purchased with funds from the
Open Space Fund and is the only Bay shore land held by the
Recreation and Park Department. The India Basin land is
located in the area of Innes Avenue and Hunters Point
Boulevard. It has been used for years as a dumping ground
and squatters' settlement, and has several barges and other
vessels, both beached and submerged, which must be
removed prior to restoring the wildlife and vegetative habitats
desired in Bay wetlands.
$150,000 available through previously appropriated FY 1990-
91 Open Space funding (See Comment #2).
Contractual Services
Beach and Underwater Clean-up
Removal of Barges and/or Dredging
Total Contractual Services
$100,000
100.000
$200,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Contingency
Approximately 15 percent of Contractual Services $30,000
50,000
&2§0_
$ 59,950
10.050
$300,000
DPW Work Order
Engineering, Architectural and Inspection
Construction Management
Total DPW Work Order
Indirect Costs
Total Project
$10,050 or 6.7 percent of the total proposed grant funds of
$150,000.
1. As noted above, $150,000 in required matching funds
would come from the FY 1990-91 Open Space Fund allocation.
The proposed $150,000 in matching fund was allocated
specifically for the India Basin Wetlands Restoration project.
2. According to Ms. Elaine Molinari of the Recreation and
Park Department, the contractors which would be used for
the Beach and Underwater Clean-up and for the Removal of
Barges and/or Dredging, have not yet been selected.
Therefore, a total of $115,000 of the proposed grant funds
should be reserved, consisting of $100,000 budgeted for
Contractual Services and $15,000 budgeted for contingencies,
pending the selection of contractors, the MBE, WBE status of
the contractors and finalized cost details.
3. The $59,950 budgeted for DPW Work Orders would be used
for DPW personnel to perform engineering, architectural
and inspection services during Phase I of the project, which
includes the removal of debris and any submerged vessels.
4. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file.
5. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" form.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve a total of
$115,000 for Contractual Services and related Contingencies,
pending the selection of contractors, the MBE, WBE status of
the contractors and finalized cost details.
2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Rev. 4/10/90
[ tcm' No. ; . . - Summary of Grant Request
~ rar(or CA Dept of Parks Division Recreation & Park Dept .
"ontact Person Section
Address : Contact Person P^l Arnold
Telephone
666-7080
Amount Requested S j^O . 000 Application Deadline
rerm: From To Notification Expected
Health Commission Board of Supervlsorsr Finance Committee
Full Board
f. Item Description; Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a)
g** *'" »"" • • ""'0 grant in theamount of $ 150,000 from the period of 1/93 to 6/97
to provide Restoration of Wetlands services
1 L Summ3rY. (C— CM|fhiiaqC—oJ«J &cwo^ — A i. r ♦ f/ m m pt •er>«J; w cc tit M* «od provider* )
The proposed grant funds would be used to clear debris, submerged
vessels and vehicles trom shoreline recreation. area at India Basin,
with the clearing and grading of the shore, natural wetland habitats
[II. Outcomes/Obfectives;
Restoration of Wela-nds
V. Effects of Reduction or Terminat ion of These Funds;
V. Financial Information:
Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Req. Match Approved by
Two Years Ago Past Yeat/Orig. Proposed Change
Grant Amount __ _____ $150,000 $150,000
Personnel
Equipment
Contract Svc. 200,000
Mat. & Supp.
Facilities/Space ;
Other 89,950
[ndirect Costs 10,050
pL Data Processing
(co*a md tid e d above)
<LLL Personnel
=7T CSC
VT CSC
Contractual
^ourcc(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant:
Vill grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How?
N/A
V HI. Contractual Services; Open Bid X So)e Source M«*.~— ..a~k*«« r «««»E»
memo to finance committee
December 16, 1992
Item lc - File 25-92-34
Department
Item:
Services to be
Performed:
Description:
Department of Social Services (DSS)
Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification
that Vocational Training and Educational Counseling
Services for the Independent Living Skills Project can be
practically performed by a private contractor for lower cost
than similar work services performed by City and County
employees.
Employment and Vocational Services would be provided to
approximately 80 to 100 adolescents (ages 16-19) who are
participants in the Independent Living Skills Project. These
services include employment and vocational counseling,
training to prepare for job application, and assistance in
finding internship positions and other job opportunities.
The Controller has determined that contracting for
Vocational and Educational Counseling Services at the
Department of Social Services in fiscal year 1992-93 would
result in estimated savings as follows:
Citv Operated Service Costs
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Total
Contracted Service Costs
Estimated Savings
Lowest
Salary
Step
Highest
Salary
Step
$40,668
9.354
$48,128
11,069
$50,022
$59,197
46.300
46.300
$3,722
$12,897
Comments:
1. According to the Department of Social Services,
Vocational and Educational Counseling Services were first
certified as required by Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1989 and
have continued to be provided by an outside contractor since
then.
2. The proposed one-year contract, which is with Ms.
Sherry Tennyson, would be retroactive to October 1, 1992,
and would expire September 30, 1993.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7
■
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
3. Fiscal year 1992-93 is Ms. Tennyson's fourth year of
providing counseling services to the Department of Social
Services. According to the Department, Ms. Tennyson is a
women-owned and minority-owned business enterprise.
4. The Department of Social Services advises that this
contract would be funded by Federal Title rV monies and
the funder requires that the contract be bid competitively
each year. According to the Department, Ms. Tennyson was
the lowest bidder and she had more experience than the
other bidders.
5. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of
this contract, is attached.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12/08/62 14:34 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS -.-- HARVEY M ROSE
CHARTER 8.300-1 PROPOSITION J QUESTIONAIRE
DEPARTMEN T: 45 Social Services For Time period 10/1/92 to 9/30/93
CONTRACT SERVICES Vocational and counseling Services, ILS Program
1. Who performed services prior to contracting out?
Service has been contracted out since program was established- It
has never been performed by City and County employees.
2. Number of City employees laid off as result of contracting out?
None .
3. Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off?
Not applicable. Employees had not performed service.
4. What percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be
contracted out.
None.
5. How long have the services been contracted out?
4 years.
6. What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certifciation?
1989-1990
7. How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action
Plan.
It will conform with the plan. RFQ has been conducted.
XJa^J^ /See?
David Rees, Contract Manager
Department Representative
557-5585
Telephone Number
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item Id - File 172-92-17
Department Department of Public Health (DPH)
Item: Resolution approving the contract between the Department of
Public Health and HHL Financial Services, Inc. to provide
uncompensated care recovery services.
Description: The DPH, through its Request for Proposal (RFP) process,
recently selected HHL Financial Services to provide
uncompensated care recovery services. These services
include (1) assisting uninsured, indigent individuals,
referred by San Francisco General Hospital, to qualify for
MediCal and/or other program benefits (i.e., Victims of
Crime program), and (2) assisting patients and the Hospital
with third party liability cases (i.e., auto accident cases) and
Workers Compensation. Specifically, HHL Financial Services
would assist individuals, who are potentially eligible for
benefits but are difficult to qualify, to fill out MediCal and/or
other program forms and to gather necessary
documentation. HHL Financial Services would also
represent MediCal applicants in appeals if an application is
denied.
Under the terms of the proposed contract, HHL Financial
Services would receive 24 percent of the first $2 million
recovered from MediCal, other programs, and liability cases,
22 percent of these funds recovered between $2 million to $4
million, and 20 percent of these funds recovered over $4
million. This represents a change from the current contract
which provides that the contractor receives 25 percent of all
funds recovered from MediCal, other programs, and liability
cases.
Comments: 1. Mr. Gordon Choy of the DPH, Contract Office reports that
the Department received only one qualified proposal, which
was from HHL Financial Services, in response to its RFP.
According to Mr. Choy, a second proposal was received by the
Department two days after the official deadline for the
submission of proposals and therefore did not qualify as a
responsive bid. Mr. Choy advises that the RFP was advertised
in the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco
Examiner, the Asian Week, the Sun Reporter and the El
Mundo newspapers. As noted above, HHL Financial
Services, which is neither an MBE or a WBE firm, was
selected as the qualified bidder. HHL Financial Services is
the current contractor for these services and has been
providing these services to the City since 1988. The proposed
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
10
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
four year contract would commence January 1, 1993 and
expire December 31, 1996.
2. Ms. Sharon Kennison of the DPH reports that in FY 1991-
92, HHL Financial Services recovered $3,294,771 from
MediCal, other programs, and liability cases. Of the
$3,294,771, 25 percent or $823,693 was paid to HHL Financial
Services and $2,471,078 or 75 percent accrued to the City. Ms.
Kennison advises that as of November, 1992, HHL Financial
Services has recovered $951,703 in FY 1992-93 from MediCal,
other programs, and liability cases.
3. Under the proposed new contract Ms. Kennison estimates
that for FY 1993-94 the City would realize an estimated $3.3
million for these services and HHL Financial Services would
earn an estimated $766,000.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item le - File 146-92-15.2
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
Aids Office
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description
Release of reserved funds for the Department of Public
Health, Aids Office, in the amount of $258,673, for the
Women's Institute for Mental Health/Iris Center and for a
grant to Marin County, for substance abuse treatment.
$258,673
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to
accept and expend a continuation of the Ryan White
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Disaster Relief
Grant (CARE/Title I Supplemental) of $14,661,192 from the
Federal Department of Health and Human Resources.
However, the Finance Committee reserved a total of
$1,270,000 earmarked for contractual services, pending the
selection of contractors, information regarding contract
budget details, and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors.
These grant funds provide assistance to localities that are
disproportionately affected by the AIDS epidemic. The
Finance Committee previously released $200,529 of the
$1,270,000 in reserve funds, leaving a balance of $1,069,471
still on reserve.
Mr. Tim Piland of the DPH reports that the Department
erroneously requested the release of reserve funds for the
grant for Marin County. According to Mr. Piland, the HRSA
did not allocate monies to Marin County for 1993-92, due to a
reduction in CARE/Title I Supplemental funds. The $258,673
requested for release from reserve is designated for the
Women's Institute of Mental Health only.
The Women's Institute of Mental Health, a non-profit
agency, in collaboration with the Ark of Refuge, also a non-
profit agency, would establish a dual-diagnosis residence for
African American women with HIV disease and active
chemical dependency. Project services would be provided to
four to six program clients at a time and would include
permanent housing, meals, and HIV support services in
conjunction with a long-term substance abuse recovery
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
program. The project budget in the amount of $258,673, is
detailed below:
Personnel
Executive Director
Associate Director
Counseling Services Director
HIV Coordinator
Administrative Coordinator
HIV Recovery Counselor
Outreach Worker
Administrative Assistant
Subtotal Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Operating Expenses
Administration:
FTE
.04
$1,500
.06
2,400
.04
1,200
.06
2,000
.05
1,250
.58
15,400
.67
15,200
,22
8,400
1.83
$47,350
13,258
Office Furnishing and Equipment
$2,800
Office Supplies
600
Printing
1,000
Staff Mileage
80
Insurance
2,500
Staff Training
500
Housing Costs:
Personnel
89,626
Rent
25,000
Client Costs (i. e., meals, Transportation)
7,066
Utilities
1,800
Supplies
900
Furniture/Equipment
18,120
Renovation and Repairs
17,450
Other Costs
4,105
Consultants
5,160
Subtotal Operating Expenses
176,707
Administration Overhead
21.358
Total
$258,673
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
13
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds in the
amount of $258,673.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Items 2 and 3 - Files 97-92-68 and 101-92-16
Item:
Description:
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative
Code, Chapter 10, by adding Article XXI, Sections 10.240
through 10.247, to prohibit departments of the City and
County from purchasing any commodities that have been
produced or manufactured in the State of Colorado;
authorizing the Purchaser to establish rules and regulations
to carry out purposes of the ordinance; providing for penalties
to ensure compliance with the ordinance; and requiring the
Purchaser to provide implementation reports annually to the
Board of Supervisors (File 97-92-68)
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 249-92, the
administrative provisions of the Annual Appropriation
Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93, by adding Section 31,
which prohibits the allowance of travel expenses incurred in
traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado.
In November, 1992, the citizens of Colorado approved a State
Constitutional Amendment, known as Amendment 2, which
repealed local anti-discrimination ordinances in the Cities of
Aspen, Boulder, ^uid Denver, and which prohibits the State of
Colorado and any department, agency, political subdivision,
municipality or school district in Colorado from enacting or
enforcing any law, regulation, or policy which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of gay, lesbian, or bisexual
orientation.
The two proposed ordinances have been submitted in
response to Colorado's passage of Amendment 2. The first
proposed ordinance (File 97-92-68) would amend the San
Francisco Administrative Code to prohibit City Departments
from purchasing any commodities that have been produced
or manufactured in the State of Colorado, authorize the
Purchaser to establish rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of the proposed ordinance, provide for penalties for
non-compliance, and require the Purchaser to provide
annual implementation reports to the Board of Supervisors
concerning the prohibition on purchases of Colorado
commodities.
The ordinance would require that the Purchaser or other
contracting officer of the City obtain a declaration under
penalty of perjury that the commodities offered under a
proposed contract have not been purchased or manufactured
in Colorado. The prohibition would not apply to contracts
entered into prior to the effective date of the ordinance,
contracts valued at less than $5,000, any contract in which
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
the City would incur a financial loss which the contracting
office believes would violate his or her fiduciary duties to the
City, or where the requirements of the proposed ordinance
are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of a grant,
subvention, or contract with the State or Federal
governments.
The Purchaser or any other City official responsible for
procuring goods and services would be required to
promulgate rules and regulations to enforce the proposed
ordinance.
The failure of a contractor to comply with the proposed
ordinance would be deemed a material breach of contract. If
the declaration submitted by the contractor, attesting that the
purchased commodities were not produced or manufactured
in Colorado, is found to be false, the City would be authorized
to impose any sanction designed to ensure compliance,
which could include 1) refusing to award a contract, 2)
ordering that a contract be suspended, 3) withholding funds,
4) ordering that the contract be revised based on a material
breach of contract, 5) disqualification of a bidder or contractor
from further consideration for a period up to five years, with
a right to review and reconsideration after two years if
corrective action is taken.
The proposed ordinance further provides that if a contractor
fails to comply in good faith with the provisions of the
proposed ordinance, the contractor would be liable for
liquidated damages for each violation, equal to 1) the bidder
or contractor's net profit under the contract, 2) 10 percent of
the total amount of the contract, or 3) a penalty of $1,000,
whichever is greatest.
The Purchaser would be required to submit an
implementation report to the Board of Supervisors one year
after the effective date of the ordinance.
The second proposed ordinance (File 101-92-16) would amend
the 1992-93 annual appropriation ordinance to prohibit the
allowance of travel expenses incurred by City employees in
traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado.
Specifically, the ordinance provides that, after January 7,
1993, no allowance would be made for expenses incurred in
traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado.
Comments: 1. Mr. Ara Manasian of the Purchasing Department states
that he has requested Mr. Harold Guetersloh of the
Controller's Office to generate a computer listing of firms
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
providing goods and services to the City whose addresses, for
the remittance of payments by the City, are in the State of
Colorado. As of the writing of this report, the list of
businesses with Colorado addresses was not available for
review by the Budget Analyst.
2. Mr. Manasian also states that the requirement that each
bidder and contractor submit a declaration, attesting that the
commodities to be procured by the City were not produced or
manufactured in Colorado, would generate "thousands of
additional documents" for review by the Purchasing
Department, and could require the Purchasing Department
"to throw out certain bids or investigate the declarations"
submitted by bidders and contractors.
Mr. Manasian states that the Purchasing Department
therefore recommends that the prohibition on the purchase of
Colorado commodities be imposed as a bid condition, whereby
bidders would be required to submit a statement, together
with their bid, that to the best of their knowledge the
commodities supplied were or were not produced or
manufactured in Colorado.
3. Mr. Manasian also states that implementation of the
proposed ordinance prohibiting the purchase of Colorado
commodities (File 97-92-68), would be difficult because many
distributors do not know where the commodities they
distribute were actually produced. As an example, Mr.
Manasian states that the City's office supplies are procured
under a contract with the Boise-Cascade company. This
contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process,
but the City's office supplies are ordered as needed from the
Boise-Cascade office supply catalogue. The catalogue
contains hundreds of different types of office supplies, and
Boise Cascade is unlikely to be able to attest which supplies
were manufactured in Colorado, according to Mr. Manasian.
For the same reason, Mr. Manasian indicates that it would
also be very difficult for City employees to determine whether
each of these items was produced or manufactured in
Colorado.
4. It should be noted that much of Colorado's economy is
centered in the Cities of Aspen, Boulder, and Denver.
Amendment 2 was rejected by a majority of voters in these
cities, and each of these Cities enacted local ordinances
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
several years ago (Aspen's ordinance was passed in 1977).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
According to Mr. Tom Watson of the Gay and Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Chapter in Denver,
which supports the proposal to prohibit the City's purchases
of Colorado commodities, the campaign in support of
Amendment 2 was organized largely by membership
organizations headquartered in Colorado Springs.
Statewide, 53.4 percent of Colorado voters supported
Amendment 2 and 46.6 percent opposed the amendment.
The following table presents the electoral returns for
Amendment 2 for Colorado's largest counties. The counties
in which the amendment was rejected by a majority of voters
are shown in bold:
Outcome by
County
Countv
Countv Seat Pet. In Favor
Pet. Omoosed
Adams
Brighton
54.4
45.6
Arapahoe
Littleton
54.8
45.2
Boulder
Boulder
39.6
61.4
Denver
Denver
40.0
60.0
El Paso
Colorado Springs
65.9
34.1
Jefferson
Golden
55.1
44.9
Larimer
Fort Collins
53.8
46.2
Mesa
Grand Junction
55.6
44.4
Pitkin
Aspen
28.1
71.9
Recommendation:
According to the election returns, approximately 33 percent
of all votes cast on Amendment 2 were cast by residents of the
metropolitan areas surrounding Boulder, Denver, Aspen,
and Colorado Springs, while the remaining votes were cast
in smaller counties.
5. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the principal
industries in the State of Colorado include manufacturing,
tourism, aerospace, and electronics equipment. Apart from
their very large service sectors, Denver relies mostly on retail
sales, transportation, and utilities; Boulder relies primarily
on manufacturing, especially industrial machinery and
instrumentation; and Colorado Springs relies most heavily
on retail sales and manufacturing, especially electronics
equipment, industrial machinery, instrumentation, and
fabricated metal.
Approval of the proposed ordinances is a policy matter for the
Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Items 4 and 5 - File 197-92-5 and 127-92-1 1
1. File 197-92-5 The proposed resolution would constitute the Cultural
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's Implementation
Committee, with the addition of the CAO or his representative, for the purpose of
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to implement other
recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force final report.
File 127-92-11 The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco
Municipal Code, Part III, Section 515 to create a special fund to be known as the
Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic Auditorium,
Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and Advertising Fund,
Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of the General Fund
and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax Funds are no longer necessary for
Candlestick Park as set forth under the proposed ordinance, a portion of such
funds would be allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for certain
publicity and advertising purposes.
2. On October 28, 1992 the Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. As a result of this hearing, the Finance
Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes in
the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues and to enpanel a committee to implement
the recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force. These two items would
1) effect changes in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues, and 2) constitute the
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's
Implementation Committee.
3. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for
the Arts (GFTA) program by certain members of the arts community. Mr.
Kreidler advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA
funds could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of
comparable size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist.
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's
population is African American, then eight percent of GFrA funds should be
allocated to African American arts organizations.
4. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the
Arts. The proposed ordinance (File 127-92-11) would establish a special fund,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
called the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, which would focus on the following
four priorities:
a. Cultural Equity Initiatives;
b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines;
c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and
d. Faculties acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative.
5. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would
be made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity
Endowment Fund would make purposeful investments for smaller arts groups
which are representative of minority cultures, Mr. Kreidler reports. For example,
a group might receive a sum of money to support start-up costs, or to market their
work for a limited time. Organizations that receive Cultural Equity Endowment
funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA on-going grants in addition to the
competitive grant received from the Cultural Equity Endowment.
6. File 127-92-11 would amend the City's Municipal Code to allocate one
percent of the total Hotel Tax Fund in FY 1993-94 and to allocate 1.5 percent in FY
1994-95 and two percent in FY 1995-96 to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund.
The attached table demonstrates the impact of the proposed allocation to the
current fund recipients of the Hotel Tax revenues. As noted in the attached table,
under the proposed legislation, in FY 1993-94 the Unallocated General Fund
would be reduced by $309,809 and Special Contingencies ( publicity and
advertising for special parades, celebrations, street fairs and unforeseen special
contingencies) would be reduced by approximately $146,136. Each of the
remaining affected organizations would be reduced by $32,150.
7. As noted on the attached table, the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund is targeted to consist of 1.0 percent and 1.5 percent of Hotel Tax funds during
the first and second years, respectively, and two percent of Hotel Tax funds
thereafter. The Task Force's report assumes that the Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund would commence in 1993-94, and that Hotel Tax revenues would increase by
five percent annually. Based on these assumptions, and based on FY 1992-93
estimated Hotel Tax revenues of $55,671,000 in 1992-93 generated from the basic 8
percent Hotel Tax rate, the Budget Analyst estimates that the total dollar amount
of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would be as follows:
• $584,546 in FY 1993-94 (one percent of the current estimated revenues
plus a five percent increase);
• $920,659 in FY 1994-95 (1.5 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94 revenues
plus a five percent increase); and
BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
• $1,287,634 in FY 1995-96 (two percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment
would consist of this two percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar
amount of Hotel Tax revenues.
8. The Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not necessarily
increase by five percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by tourists, and
tourism generally declines during economic downturns and increases during
upturns. A five percent annual increase is higher than the current rate of
inflation. Thus, an assumption that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent
per year assumes that either the number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates
charged by such hotels will increase in future years, an assumption that may not
be realized depending on economic conditions. Historically, the 8 percent of the
total 11 percent Hotel Tax has generated the following actual revenues:
FY
Amount
Percent Increase
1987-88
$44,357,994
n/a
198&89
48,810,018
10.0 %
1989-90
46,120,913
(5.5)
1990-91
50,588,835
9.7
1991-92
52,389,209
3.6
As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent
annual increase estimated by the Task Force.
9. The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to the five
organizations which would receive a reduction in the percentage of the Hotel Tax
funds would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel Tax
revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Instead,
the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in future
increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax revenues
included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst concurs that
each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar amount of
their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the dollar
amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not increase over
time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would decrease
because of the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In other
words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if their
anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure reductions.
10. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts
Commission, the Arts Commission or the Grants for the Arts were both
recommended as the agency to administer the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund.
According to Ms. Winship, the proposed Task Force's Implementation Committee
(File 197-92-5) would decide which agency would administer the proposed
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Cultural Equity Endowment Program. Ms. Winship advises that because of the
nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the Endowment would
be expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned
a decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition,
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund
would be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates.
11. In addition to deciding which agency would be responsible for
administering the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Program, the proposed
Task Force's Implementation Committee (File 197-92-5) would develop proposals
to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force's final
report.
Recommendation
The proposed ordinance and resolution are policy matters for the Board of
Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
22
^^, ^ ^^ ^ „
■
o
ssssoioogio
5 tT 1 TT r- C\l
CO 00 CO 00 *— _ ^~_
3S
co to
£
o" o" o" o" -- w
^ r~T
-;^ 52 S
00 CO
o
CM CM
3=
j^ _- — _ —
^-" ,-"
Q
ftl NN(OintOU)ION
r>- _
«■
2Jcocotog>'-cj>o>r~-
2 . - •*; - *"" - ~°- < °-
,_- "9 CO" CNj" ^" •" V CO" 0C»
JKcOCOCM'-tO'-COCO
§ 3
U3
S S
ttf
Jg co_ co_ to o. •- o. •»_ co
"^ CM
S £
CO
- to to" o" V <•" V
CM *"
co -
to
(A
>-
u.
«
* s
COCOCOCOCOIOCOCDO
gg
5?
o
as
COCDCOCOCMCMCMCOtO
o o
o
-^ d d co" id d co to" d
CO CM
8
8
•
•"•SS^ocoooo
oo co co co ■**■ oo
a> o>
u
io_ uo io_ io_ ■» <©
CO CO
CO
c
c
o" o* o~ o" co" •
d d
CM
rs.r-~.r-r-. io oo
t£-~~— - ^ 5.
CM CM
c
a> co
OJ
£
CM
a>
Q
— ■»*ris.*-co»u>v
cm"
oo *~- *". 0D - °°- * •. * *!
"£
aa
CO CO
CM
S 1 _
CM
- rC rs." to" co" co" co" op" oo
;>COlOlOCMIOCMCOCO
to" d
N."
5 2
co
^ o. q o co •- q n to
ss
CO
2, o
O* i_
o> ^
- to" to" o" co" co •»
o"*»
eg *~
CO
ID
to
M
«»
(A
fc
<•
"§ s
oi&Siffloonmo
gg
S 5
o
OOoaoDCOCMCNJCNJ-r-tO
io <et
o
*- a* cj) to" to o co" r^ o
oo" T^
d
s*
•0- «-
at
o
e
S" ©" o" S" o coo S" o
«r <o
1
uiioinio co o
■* ^
IO IO
£
CM CM* CM* CM CO" 0>
CO CO CO CO ^ Q
J» ~~~- " — J^, S,
3 3
■O M>
J* •»
o
^iniO'-coiocoNN
o
Sgco8cor^«-r^9h«.
o »
O IO
to
V
w>
_- co" co" cm" »-" to" «- •- d
o> —
to £
If^
J co_ oo_ co_ to_ •- tt> co co
co to
3"
o» o
V
5 to" io" o>" co" co" V
r»"*»
CO"
2
CM
2
8
£
v>
Is
sSaSsS^sSjSsSsS^
^S!
a?
Is
12
OU1I0I0C0U)(0t-O
0>O>0)tWWN»CO
8§
8
♦ J o>o>to"tdoto"t>"o
r
o
o
•"
8
_inin»-o)nco»-N
^iniflo^Sr-ocj
5 *. *. °. s . "i N . ™. N .
§°
§
- io" <o" io" •— cm" »-"»-" d
»S
25 co_ S_ 5_ S cm S to co
S"
3
co"
5 £
of
io
3 ">" ">" o>" co" co" V
CM
** •
*»
aSaSaea-^aPaeaPaP
»« °
a?
l g
3*
QQOQcoocO'>ro
OSOJ)(M«1M(J tO
8
8
cm d id i to i to o to h» d
•♦ ^- »- •-
8
8
3
to
— " CO
8
-? i -
8 Si2 5 1
« H? | £ if-
c!;i|f|!l|J § «f K
i 8u -:iiillll
3
s
i
>
•
M
a
»
i
>
•
a
O
X
a
o
X
»-
<3 co5q-Ooo_i3<
o
23
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 6 -File 127-92-2.1
1. Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code by
amending Section 807 thereof, providing an exemption from the payment of the
Stadium Operator Admission Tax, by extending for one year, through December 31,
1993, the exemption from the payment Admission Taxes on tickets sold at $17.99 or
less.
2. Until December 31, 1992, Section 807 of Article II, Part II of the San
Francisco Municipal Code provided for an exemption from the $0.50 Stadium
Operator Admission Tax for tickets priced at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid
admissions to any single event. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 807 to
extend the exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets but at the increased price limit of
$17.99 or less (a $5.00 increase in the prices of exempt tickets) for the first 42,500
paid admissions at each event to be effective for one year, until December 31, 1993.
3. The Stadium Operator Admission Tax was established in 1971 to partially
finance the expansion of Candlestick Park. The Giants report that a) the stadium
expansion of 1970 was exclusively for the accommodation of football; b) between
1970 and 1979, attendance in excess of pre-expansion capacity (approximately
42,500) occurred on only 15 occasions totaling only 118,526 tickets with total
additional ticket sales from the expansion resulting in approximately $511,600 of
additional revenue; c) during this same time period (1970-79), the Giants generated
approximately $2,064,046 in Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenues. Since 1980,
the Giants have exceeded pre-expansion capacity on 60 dates (10 of these dates were
in the 1989 season which had total attendance of 2,370,126 including 310,297 for
three playoff games and two World Series games).
4. Prior to 1977, exemptions from this Stadium Operator Tax had a minor
impact on revenues and were primarily limited to tickets priced $2.01 or less. From
1977 through 1987, the ticket prices to be exempt rose several times. During 1988
and 1989, the exemption was on tickets of $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid
admissions at each event. Tickets sold in excess of 42,500 at each event were subject
to the $0.50 tax. As previously noted, the proposed ordinance would extend the
exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets at the increased price limit of $17.99 or less
for the first 42,500 paid admissions until December 31, 1993.
5. Actual revenues to the Candlestick Park Fund from the $0.50 Stadium
Operator Admission Tax from FY 1986-87 through FY 1991-92 have been as follows:
1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93****
49ers $306,400 $349,089 $341,000 $326,000 $326,000 $523,000
Giants 87,636* 11,094** 176,259*** 22,262** 6,761**740,000
Monsters of Rock
Concert 32.500
Total $394,036 $392,683 $517,259 $348,262 $332,761$!, 263,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
24
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
* Reflects Admission Tax payments on playoff games which had ticket prices
exceeding $9.99.
** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in excess of
42,500 at each game.
*** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in excess of
42,500 at each game and for playoff and World Series games which had ticket prices
exceeding $12.99.
**** Budgeted Amounts
6. Ticket prices for the Giants in 1992 were $12.25 for a lower box, $11.25 for
an upper box, $10.25 for a lower reserved seat, $8.25 for an upper reserved seat,
$5.25 for a pavilion seat, and $2.75 for a general admission seat.
7. The proposed exemption from the $0.50 Stadium Operator Admission Tax
would apply to tickets priced at $17.99 or less rather than for tickets priced at $12.99
or less as the 1992 exemption provided. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation
and Park Department, the proposed increase of ticket price Stadium Operator
Admission Tax exemption from $12.99 to $17.99 is because the Giants intend to
increase ticket prices for the 1993 baseball season. As of the writing of this report,
the proposed ticket price increases have not been disclosed. However, because the
proposed exemption is for tickets sold at $17.99, it is reasonable to expect that the
Giants' increased ticket prices for the 1993 season will not exceed $17.99. Thus, all
the tickets sold by the Giants, (excluding those tickets sold in excess of 42,500 per
game, and excluding playoff and World Series tickets) which have a price of less than
$17.99, are exempt from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax. Ticket prices for the
49ers are $35.75 for all seats in 1992. In accordance with a 1985 agreement between
the City and the 49ers, luxury boxes are exempt from the Stadium Operator
Admission Tax.
8. The projected amount of annual revenue in 1993 from the Stadium Operator
Admission Tax, a) based on an exemption for all tickets sold at $2.01 or less (which
would result if this proposed ordinance were not approved), and b) based on an
exemption for all tickets sold at $17.99 or less (which would result if this proposed
ordinance were approved), and c) based on budgeted and projected 1993 attendance
figures, would be as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
25
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Proiected 1993 Stadium
Operator Admission Tax Revenues
If exemption of tax
is on all tickets
of $2.01 or less
(If proposed
legislation
is not approved)
If exemption of tax
is on all tickets
of$17.99orlessfor
the first 42,500
paid admissions
at each event
(If proposed
legislation
is approved)
Estimated
Additional Revenues
to the City
(If proposed
legislation
is not approved)
49ers
Giants
$326,000
875.000
$326,000
6.761
$868,239
Total
$1,201,000
$332,761
$868,239
Approval of the proposed legislation would result in an estimated loss of
revenues to the City of $868,239.
Comment
In May of 1992, the Board of Supervisors granted an exemption to the
Stadium Operator Tax on all tickets of $12.99 or less. When the Finance Committee
passed this legislation out to the full Board of Supervisors, the Committee stated that
this would be the last time that the exemption would be granted Based on that stated
intent, the Recreation and Park Department and the Controller's Office included
$700,000 in additional Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenue in the Recreation
and Park Department's FY 1992-93 budget. 1 Thus, if the proposed exemption is
granted, the Candlestick Park Fund would realize a shortfall of $700,000 in budgeted
revenue. In FY 1992-93 the Candlestick Park Fund had a surplus of approximately
$3.5 million which was budgeted as a transfer to the General Fund. In order to
operate Candlestick Park at its current level, this $3.5 million transfer to the General
Fund would have to be reduced by $700,000 in FY 1992-93. Therefore, if the proposed
exemption is approved, an amount of $700,000 less would be transferred from the
Candlestick Park Fund to the General Fund. It should be noted that the proposed
concessions to the Giants of approximately $3.1 million annually ($1.5 million in FY
1992-93) will also reduce the Candlestick Park Fund transfer to the General Fund by
approximately $1.5 million, thereby resulting in total reduced transfers to the General
Fund of $2.2 million ($1.5 million plus $700,000) in 1992-93, if the $3.1 million of
concessions are granted to the Giants and if this proposed exemption of the Stadium
Operator Admission tax is approved.
lr The Department budgeted $700,000 in Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenue instead of
$868,239 which is the projected additional annual revenue form the Giants paying the Stadium
Operator Admission Tax.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
26
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Recommendation
In May of 1992 the Finance Committee expressed its intent to not approve an
exemption to the Stadium Operator Admission Tax in 1993 and the Recreation and
Park Department and the Controller's Office included $700,000 in revenues from the
Stadium Operator Admission Tax to reflect that intent.
Approval of the proposed exemption is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors. As stated above, such approval would result in a loss to the City's
General Fund of $700,000 for FY 1992-93.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
27
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Items 7 and 8 -Files 101-92-15 and 102-92-7
Note: These items were continued at the December 9, 1992 Finance
Committee Meeting.
Department:
Items:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Department of Public Health
Item 7 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-
15) for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe
benefits, other contractual services, auto mileage, travel,
training, other current services, telephone, materials and
supplies, data/word processing equipment purchase/lease
and reproduction.
Item 8 - Ordinance (File 102-92-7) to amend the Annual
Salary Ordinance to create two new positions.
$37^89
New revenues generated by implementing Medical Waste
Generator fees. No General Fund monies are required.
The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990
authorizes local agencies to establish a medical waste
regulatory program. The Board of Supervisors previously
approved an ordinance (File 118-92-8) to amend the San
Francisco Health Code to provide for the Medical Waste
Generator Program. Medical Waste is the discarded
superfluous material from medical or veterinary agencies
that may contain infectious disease organisms that may be a
health threat to humans and animals. The Medical Waste
Generator Program regulates the storage, treatment,
transportation and disposal of medical waste within the City.
The proposed ordinances would create two new positions to
operate the Medical Waste Generator Program and would
fund those two new positions and related operating costs for
the start-up of the Medical Waste Generator Program.
The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-7) to amend the 1992-93
Annual Salary Ordinance would create two new positions, as
follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
28
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Biweekly Annual
Salary Salary At
Classification Range TopStep
6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector $2,135-2,596 $67,756
1446 Secretary II 1,158-1,401 36,566
For the balance of Fiscal Year 1992-93, the proposed new 6122
Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would be
full-time beginning June 1, 1993 (2.2 biweekly pay periods-
BWPP) and the proposed new 1446 Secretary II position
would be half-time beginning January 1, 1993 (12.9 biweekly
pay periods).
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance File 101-
92-15) would fund the proposed two new positions and
program operating costs for the period from January 1,
through June 30, 1993 as follows:
Personnel
Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous:
6122 Sr. Environmental Health Insp. (2.2 BWPP @ $2,596) $5,711
1446 Secretary U (12.9 BWPP @ $1,336 @ half-time) 8,617
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 3.575
Subtotal-Personnel $17,903
Operating Costs
Other Contractual Services $2,000
The DPH currently contracts with the firm of
American Environmental Management to perform
emergency cleanup of hazardous materials on an
as-needed basis. This contractor would also
perform medical waste cleanups, as needed. The
average cost of such incidents is $750 and, on
average, three such incidents will occur between
171/93 and 6/30/93.
Auto Mileage 300
Travel 250
Training 500
BOARD OF SUPKRVTSOT^
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Other Current Services $4,975
Postage to mail medical waste packets to medical
waste generators ($3,100). Compliance pamphlets
and guidebooks printing ($1,750). Rental of pager for
inspector ($125).
Telephone 300
Materials and Supplies 2,161
Office supplies ($961) and computer supplies
($1,200).
Reproduction 2.000
Application packets, information documents and
photographs and slides related to training and
enforcement.
Subtotal-Operating Costs $12,486
Equipment
Data/Word Processing Equipment Purchase/Lease 7.500
One Personal Computer (PC) and related
equipment and one laser printer
Total Proposed Supplemental Appropriation $37,889
Comments: 1. The proposed funding for auto mileage is based on local
travel costs of the Senior Environmental Health Inspector for
a six-month period. Because the Senior Environmental
Health Inspector will not be hired until June 1, 1993, only $50
for one month of auto mileage is required for the Senior
Environmental Health Inspector. However, the DPH requests
that an additional $100 be allowed for reimbursement of auto
mileage of other, existing employees of the DPH hazardous
waste program that will be performing medical waste
program activities for the five-month period between the start
of the program on January 1, 1993 and the hiring of the new
Senior Environmental Health Inspector. Therefore, the
proposed budget for auto mileage should be reduced by $150
from $300 to $150.
2. The $125 cost for the rental of a pager is also based on six
months of use by the Senior Environmental Health Inspector.
The $125 should be reduced by $105 from $125 to $20 for the
five months between January 1 and May 31, 1993 before the
Senior Environmental Health Inspector is hired.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
3. The DPH reports that the Electronic Information
Processing Steering Committee (EIPSC) has not yet approved
the purchase of the computer equipment. Therefore, the
proposed $7,500 for Data/Word Processing Equipment
Purchase/Lease should be reserved pending EIPSC approval.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance (File 101-92-15) to reduce (a) the requested funding
for Auto Mileage by $150 from $300 to $150 as detailed in
Comment 1, above and (b) the requested funding for Other
Current Services by $105 for pager rental from $4,975 to $4,870
as detailed in Comment 2, above.
2. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance (File 101-92-15) to reserve $7,500 for Data/Word
Processing Equipment Purchase/Lease pending EIPSC
approval.
3. Based on the previous Board of Supervisors approval of the
Medical Waste Generator Program (File 118-92-8), approve
the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-
92-15), as amended, to fund the program for the balance of
Fiscal Year 1992-93 and approve the proposed ordinance to
amend the Annual Salary Ordinance (File 102-92-7) to create
two new positions for the program.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 9 - File 265-92-1
Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy Committee
Meeting on December 8,1992 because of its fiscal impact.
Item:
Description:
Resolution declaring it to be the policy of the Board of
Supervisors to foster the growth of the Interactive Media
Industry in the San Francisco Bay Area and to take various
actions in furtherance of the growth of this industry in the
San Francisco Bay Area.
Interactive Media provides information/entertainment
services through the use of computers. The proposed
resolution states that the San Francisco Bay area is currently
the defacto capital of the developing Interactive Media
industry because of the concentration of computer, video,
writing and arts skills available in the Bay Area.
Additionally, according to the resolution, the strategic
economic importance of this industry is significant to San
Francisco. All inclusive worldwide revenue for this industry
is expected to be between $25 and $31 billion by the year 1995,
according to the resolution.
The International Interactive Communications Society
(IICS) was founded in San Francisco over nine years ago.
This organization is composed of representatives from the
business community, the educational community,
government, computer hardware/software companies, and
groups representing multimedia developers, book publishers,
filmmakers, printers, graphic designers, musicians, and
artists. The objectives of this organization include (1)
developing an understanding of Interactive Media through
educational institutions, (2) creating a Multimedia
Showcase/Center where both public and private
organizations can use Interactive Media, (3) integrating fiber
optics (the transmission of light through transparent fibers
for the transmission of data, communications, and images)
into communication systems and (4) providing business
assistance to the growing base of Interactive Media
producers.
Local Interactive Media industry representatives, including
the IICS, testified before the Finance Committee in hearings
during March and April of 1992. The industry
representatives advised the Finance Committee that the
Interactive Media industry is a high growth industry and
has a unique ability to create a large number of jobs.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
According to the proposed resolution, the local individuals
and companies that currently make up this industry are
generally in their start-up phases and are therefore in need
of resources to enhance their capabilities and allow them to
reach their maximum potential. As such, the proposed
resolution would provide that the Board of Supervisors
undertake the following steps in support of this industry:
1. Work cooperatively with other public and private
entities, public utilities, non-government organizations,
State agencies and other city governments, in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
2. Make it a City policy to encourage and assist the public
and private educational institutions in San Francisco in
establishing curricula and degree programs which will
produce workers trained in the disciplines necessary to
fuel this industry.
3. Consider zoning laws which would permit and
encourage public utilities and private industry to build a
lattice of high bandwidth telecommunications lines in
sections of the City where high concentrations of
interactive media developers and the supporting
industries are expected ( i.e., the Financial District,
South of Market, Mission Bay, Indian Basin and the
Commercial Waterfront). According to the proposed
resolution these telecommunications lines would
provide a cost effective, state-of-the-art means for the
Interactive Media industry to exchange video, audio,
text, and graphic information, which is important to the
high-performance functioning of the industry and
related industries.
4. Have the City evaluate the use of Interactive Media by
City employees for training purposes, as job aids and to
provide information directly to citizens.
5. Evaluate the use of Interactive Media to provide public
information to tourists, in the San Francisco Airport,
BART and other locations where there are high
concentrations of tourists.
6. Recommend that the City evaluate its participation in
"electronic highways" (fiber optic network
transmissions) initiatives.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
7. Declare that the City will participate in and assist in
the funding of a San Francisco Bay Area Interactive
Media industry umbrella organization. Composition of
this organization would include City representatives,
computer hardware and software interests, Interactive
Media publishing interests, professional society
representatives, telecommunications interests, liaisons
to Pacific Rim and European communities and
representatives from local educational institutions with
multimedia curricula.
8. Declare that the City, in partnership with the
aforementioned umbrella organization and the
Interactive Media industry sponsors, will consider
establishing, as well as assisting in the funding of an
Interactive Media Center. The Center, which would
serve as a focal point for the Interactive Media industry,
would be used for the following functions: (1) a library of
Interactive Media with a viewing area, (2) a meeting
place for industry groups, (3) small conference areas
and Interactive Media equipped presentation facilities,
and office space for the IICS San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter and/or the above noted local umbrella
organization.
9. Urge the Mayor to allocate staff support from the
Office of Economic Development to work with the
proposed umbrella organization on implementing the
various directives of the proposed resolution.
10. Urge the Mayor to identify any available funds within
the existing Economic Development budget in the
amount of $15,000 to $25,000 to be used for the
development of a strategic plan for the establishment of
the Interactive Media industry umbrella organization,
the Interactive Media Center and the Interactive Media
Festival.
11. Declare that the City should allocate monies from the
Hotel Tax Fund to sponsor an international Interactive
Media Festival modeled on the Cannes Film Festival.
The purpose of this festival would be to showcase, judge
and create a marketplace for Interactive Media.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
34
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Comments: 1. Mr. Ron Blatman of the Mayor's Office of Economic
Planning and Development (MOEPD), reports that any
support services that are provided to the Interactive Media
industry umbrella organization would be absorbed by existing
staff.
2. According to Mr. Kent Sims, Director of the Mayor's Office
of Economic Planning and Development, MOEPD has
committed staff expertise to aiding the development of San
Francisco's Interactive Media industry and will continue to
work with industry participants to facilitate industry growth
in San Francisco, as well as assist them in identifying
sources of support and organization models. However, Mr.
Sims advises that the Mayor's Office does not have any
discretionary funds available in FY 1992-93 to dedicate to the
promotion of this industry. According to Mr. Sims, the
Mayor's Office will however, attempt to identify specific
projects for which the Mayor's Office could provide funding
assistance in FY 1993-94 to help promote the development of
the Interactive Media industry.
3. Mr. Blatman and Mr. Tim Boyle of the HCS advised that
no definitive estimate has yet been made regarding the
amount of City monies which might be allocated to fund the
Interactive Media industry umbrella organization and the
Interactive Media Center. Additionally, Mr. Blatman and
Mr. Boyle advised that to their knowledge, no specific
estimate has yet been made regarding either the amount of
Hotel Tax monies which might be allocated to fund the
international Interactive Media Festival or the amount of
Hotel Tax monies which might be reallocated from existing
organizations in order to provide Hotel Tax monies to the
Interactive Media Festival.
Reco mmen dation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the
Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
35
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 10 - File 100-92-9
Note: This item was continued at the December 2, 1992, Finance Committee
meeting.
This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for
the City and County of San Francisco.
On October 27, 1992, a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office,
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the
following items:
Airport Advance - ($25 million): The Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution authorizing an agreement between the City, the Airports Commission,
and various airlines regarding advance payment to the City of $25 million from the
Airport's Capital Improvement Fund at its meeting of December 7, 1992.
PUC Equity Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million): The Board of
Supervisors, at its meeting of December 7, 1992, approved equity transfers from the
Water Department ($4.7 million) including $2.2 million from the proposed sale of
the Water Department property to the Olympic Club and Hetch Hetchy ($2.5
million).
Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's
General Fund. The City Attorney is developing an opinion regarding the legality of
such a transfer of funds. As of the writing of this report the City Attorney has not
finalized this opinion.
The Controller has been requested by the Finance Committee to provide an
update on the City's current revenues and expenditures projection.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
36
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 11 -File 161-92-5.1
Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992, Finance Committee
meeting.
Department:
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Recommendations:
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA)
Resolution approving an amendment to the Redevelopment
Agency's FY 1992-93 budget.
The proposed resolution would appropriate 830,000 from a
recent bond transaction fee paid to the SFRA to fund a
personal services contract with a consultant to provide
bilingual technical services to nonprofit organizations and
24th Street merchants as part of the 24th Street
Revitalization Project.
Mr. Bob Gamble of the SFRA reports that the SFRA recently
received $81,000 from the Webster Tower and Terrace bond
transaction. $51,000 represents fees past due and $30,000
represents new fees. The proposed resolution would
approve an amendment to the SFRA's budget to appropriate
$30,000 of these revenues. The remaining $51,000 has not yet
been targeted for a specific purpose.
1. As previously noted, the proposed budget amendment
would appropriate $30,000 in bond transaction fees.
However, the body of the proposed resolution indicates that
the proposed amendment to the SFRA's budget would
permit a transfer of line items for the expenditure of $30,000
for a personal services contract. As such, the proposed
resolution should be amended to delete reference to "the
transfer of line items" and replace it with "appropriate new
revenues."
2. Mr. Leaman Abrams of the Redevelopment Agency
reports that the SFRA has advertised for the proposed
consultant position but has not yet selected a consultant. As
such, the Budget Analyst recommends that the $30,000 be
placed on reserve pending selection of the consultant.
Instead, the SFRA requests the proposed resolution be
continued to the call of the Chair pending the SFRA's
selection of a consultant.
1. Amend the proposed resolution to delete reference to
"transfer of line items" and replace with "appropriate new
revenues" as described in Comment 1.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
37
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
2. Continue the proposed resolution as amended to the call
of the Chair pending the SFRA's selection of a consultant as
described in Comment 2.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
38
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 12 - File 101-92-20
Item: This item is a hearing to consider the transfer of a portion of
the Family Violence Project's funding to the Sheriffs
Department.
1. The Family Violence Project originated in 1980 as a
Federal demonstration grant project to enhance awareness
and intervention against domestic violence by working to
improve the prosecution of alleged batterers, providing
assistance and counseling to women and children who have
confronted domestic violence, training health workers, peace
officers, and other professionals in responding to cases of
domestic violence, and identifying gaps in service and
working to correct them. At the time the Family Violence
Project was established, it was located in the District
Attorney's Office, in part because one of the authors of the
Federal grant proposal was then the Director of the District
Attorney's Victims Witness Assistance Bureau, which
assists victims of all violent crimes, including domestic
violence, in seeking compensation available from the State.
2. Beginning in approximately 1982, the Federal grant funds
were augmented with City General Fund monies and private
foundation grants. In approximately 1985, a non-profit
agency was established under the name of the Family
Violence Project, to administer a greater share of foundation
grants and other private funding, and to expand advocacy,
public education, and prevention efforts concerning domestic
violence. In 1991, the non-profit agency changed its name
from the Family Violence Project to the Family Violence
Prevention Fund. The Family Violence Project now refers to
the combined efforts of the Family Violence Prevention Fund
and the domestic violence services in the District Attorney's
Office.
3. In Fiscal Year 1992-93, the District Attorney's budget
includes $291,955 for the Family Violence Project. These
funds are used to provide services at the Hall of Justice,
including assistance and advocacy for victims of domestic
violence, counseling in criminal justice procedures,
assistance and referral in civil matters (such as restraining
orders and divorce proceedings), policy and procedures
development for the District Attorney's Office, Police
Department, and San Francisco General Hospital, public
conferences, training of health care providers in recognizing
cases of domestic violence, and outreach to San Francisco
residents, especially those at special risk of confronting
domestic violence.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGFrr ANALYST
39
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
4. According to Ms. Esta Soler, Executive Director of the
Family Violence Prevention Fund, a proposal is being
considered to transfer $196,582 in funding for the Family
Violence Project from the District Attorney's Office to the
Sheriffs Department. Budgeted funds of $95,373 would
remain with the District Attorney. Ms. Soler states that the
Sheriff would request approval of a Proposition J certification
to award the transferred funds for a contract to the Family
Violence Prevention Fund, as a non-profit agency, to provide
continued public services concerning domestic violence.
Ms. Sue Martin of the Family Violence Project states that the
intent of the proposed transfer of funds is to shift the
advocacy, education, and prevention services of the Family
Violence Project from the District Attorney's Office to the
Family Violence Prevention Fund. Under the proposal,
funding would continue in the District Attorney's budget for
those activities which are specifically related to the
prosecution of domestic violence complaints. Specifically,
Ms. Martin states that funding would continue in the District
Attorney's budget for assisting victims of domestic violence in
understanding criminal justice procedures, obtaining "stay-
away" orders, preparing for Court appearances, and other
legal matters related to prosecution.
5. Ms. Martin states that most outside sources of funding for
the outreach, education, and prevention activities of the
Family Violence Project are now granted to the Family
Violence Prevention Fund. In 1992-93, the San Francisco
Commission on the Status of Women granted $73,217 to the
Family Violence Prevention Fund for such outreach and
prevention activities. The total 1992-93 budget of the Family
Violence Prevention Fund, including the $73,217 allocated to
the agency by the Commission on the Status of Women, is
approximately $860,000, according to Ms. Martin.
6. Of the $291,955 appropriated to the District Attorney's
Office in 1992-93 for the Family Violence Project, the
following table shows the specific positions and the amount of
funds proposed to be transferred to the Sheriff and to remain
with the District Attorney's Office on an annual basis:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
40
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Services to be Transferred to Sheriff FTE Amount
8452 Criminal Justice Specialist II* 0.90 $36,495
8452 Criminal Justice Specialist II** 0.80 33,028
8454 Criminal Justice Specialist III 0.20 10,627
Principal Clerk 1.00 38,622
Victim/Witness Investigator III 0.40 15.808
Subtotal 3.30 139,580
Fringe Benefits (29 percent) 40,472
* Funded through the District Attorney's Prosecution Section
** This position is currently vacant
Operating Expense
Subtotal: Proposed to be Transferred to Sheriff
Services to Remain w ith District Attorney FTE
Victim & Witness Technician
Victim/Witness Investigator I
Victim/Witness Investigator II
Victim/Witness Investigator III
Subtotal
0.60
0.80
0.80
0.20
2.40
Fringe Benefits (11.9 percent)
Subtotal: Proposed to Remain with District Attorney
Total 1992-93 Family Violence Project Budget
16.530
Amount
$19,771
24,315
33254
_L9JH
$85,244
10-129
$19632
95,373
$291,955
The budget summary presented above does not reflect that the
District Attorney's budget for the Family Violence Project
includes $8,949 in salary savings for 1992-93. The District
Attorney's budget for the Domestic Violence Project also
includes an Assistant Chief Victims/Witness Investigator
and a Chief Victims/Witness Investigator at an annual cost
of $98,893, but these positions have not been filled, and the
budget therefore also includes a salary adjustment of $98,583
to deduct funds for these positions.
7. Ms. Martin has estimated that, of the $291,955 budgeted for
the Family Violence Project in the District Attorney's 1992-93
budget, $95,373 is the budgeted cost of the prosecution-related
services which are proposed to remain in the District
Attorney's budget, and $196,582 is the budgeted cost of the
City-wide education and advocacy services which are
proposed to be performed by the Family Violence Prevention
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
41
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Fund under contract with the Sheriffs Department. The
Budget Analyst will examine the appropriateness of these
proposed allocations, including the amount which should be
transferred based on the period remaining in the current
fiscal year, if the Mayor approves a supplemental
appropriation request for the transfer of funds from the
District Attorney to the Sheriffs Department for the Family
Violence Project.
8. Ms. Soler states that if the Family Violence Prevention
Fund is awarded a Proposition J personal services contract
by the Sheriffs Department using transferred funds, five
Civil Service positions which are now included in the District
Attorney's budget, would become employees of the non-profit
agency, rather than the City. In addition, Ms. Soler states
that the Family Violence Prevention Fund would employ
student interns to provide services. Ms. Soler estimates that
savings of approximately $20,000 in salary costs would be
realized in fiscal year 1993-94 if a Proposition J contract were
awarded to the Family Violence Prevention Fund
Mr. Arnie Sowell of the Controller's Office states that any
cost savings which could be realized under a Proposition J
personal services contract to the Family Violence Prevention
Fund have not yet been determined, since the Controller has
not received the supplemental appropriation request from the
Mayor's Office, which would be needed if funds were to be
transferred from the District Attorney's Office to the Sheriffs
Department to fund a proposed personal services contract.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 13 - File 97-92-63
Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992, Finance Committee
meeting.
1. The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco Administrative
Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which establishes and governs the
maintenance of the Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund,
by providing for the balance of all funds remaining in the Fund at the close of each
Fiscal Year to be carried forward and accumulated in said Fund.
2. The Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund (CATV
Fund) was established by the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of receiving 0.2
percent of the Franchise Fee from Viacom which was to be used for development of
municipal, educational and public access to cable television and related
programming. Section 10.117-68 currently provides that the balance of
appropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year
shall be deemed to have been provided for a specific purpose and shall be carried
forward and accumulated in the CATV Fund for the purposes for which the CATV
Fund was established. Section 10.117-68 also provides that the balance of
unappropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year
shall be transferred to the General Fund as franchise and permit fee revenue.
3. The proposed ordinance would delete the language in Section 10.117-68
that currently permits the transfer of the balance of unappropriated funds
remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal to the General Fund
resulting in the requirement that all funds, either appropriated or unappropriated,
be retained in the CATV Fund and carried forward to the next fiscal year.
Therefore, transfers of unappropriated funds from the CATV Fund to the General
Fund would not be automatic in the future and would instead require specific
authorization by the Board of Supervisors.
Comments
1. Ms. Susan Maher of the Controller's Office reports that although the
current provisions of Section 10.117-68 provide that the balance of unappropriated
funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year shall be
transferred to the General Fund, no such transfers have been made in the past,
since the establishment of the CATV Fund in 1987.
2. At their meeting of October 27, 1992 the Administration and Oversight
Committee held a hearing (File 100-92-2.1) to consider pending revisions to the
appropriations of the Department of the Board of Supervisors totaling $130,000 in
reductions. The $130,000 included a total of $74,096 in reductions to Official
Advertising ($15,294), Reproduction ($20,000), Mail Services ($5,000), Data Word
Processing Equipment Maintenance ($3,000) and a reduction in the Budget
Analyst's contract ($30,802). The $55,904 balance of the $130,000 reduction
($130,000 less $74,096) was to be met by an $8,208 increase in revenues and a
transfer of funds from the CATV Fund of $47,696.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
43
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
3. The Board of Supervisors adopted a motion requesting the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors to undertake the following to eliminate the $82,304 budgetary
shortfall ($130,000 less the $47,696 transfer from the CATV Fund) that otherwise
would have required increased fees of $8,208 and expenditure reductions totaling
$74,096:
A. Take all necessary steps to provide more flexibility to the Board of
Supervisors to make use of a portion of the accumulated unspent
resources in the CATV Fund without reducing current appropriations for
educational access and public access.
B. Ask the Controller to prepare necessary revisions in the Board's
1992-93 budget to maintain the level of services from the Budget Analyst
provided in the budget adopted in July 1992, and to restore
appropriations to the Board's legal advertising, reproduction, and mail
services accounts so that the public's right to be fully informed about
proposed legislation will not be impaired, and to avoid imposing
excessive fees on members of the public.
4. The Controller's Office is currently processing the transfer of $47,696 from
the CATV Fund. The CATV Fund would still have a balance of $99,494 after
effecting the transfer of $47,696. An additional transfer of $82,304 from the CATV
Fund would still leave a CATV Fund unappropriated balance of $17,190.
5. Mr. John Taylor, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, indicates that the
proposed ordinance would clarify the Administrative Code regarding the CATV
Fund year-end balance by deleting the language that requires the automatic
transfer of the unappropriated balance of funds in the CATV Fund to the General
Fund. Mr. Taylor states that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, additional,
legislation to transfer funds from the CATV Fund to the General Fund will be
submitted for consideration by the Finance Committee and the full Board of
Supervisors in order to eliminate the $82,304 balance of budgetary reductions and
fee increases to the Board's 1992-93 budget.
Recomm endation
Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
44
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 14 -File 97-92-67
Department:
Item:
Description:
Board of Supervisors
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Section
8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing
copies of documents relating to the business of the Board of
Supervisors.
The proposed ordinance would allow the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors to charge and collect fees to defray the cost of the
issuance of documents and services. The Budget Analyst's
memo dated June 3, 1992, included recommendations on the
amount of these fees based upon cost considerations and
comparable fees charged by other California counties. Many
of these recommended fees by the Budget Analyst have been
incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The proposed
ordinance does not specify whether these fees would be
charged specifically to the public or whether the fees would
also be charged to City departments.
The proposed fees and the projected revenues that would be
generated by the proposed new fees (based on information
gathered by the Clerk of the Board's Office on weekly
activities provided to the public) are as follows:
Item
Agenda-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors
(weekly mailing, annual subscription)
Agenda-Finance Committee (weekly mailing,
annual subscription)
Agenda-Legislative Committee Meetings
(regular mailing, annual subscription)
Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors
(annual subscription)
Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors
(mailing, per copy)
Legislative packets-meeting of the Board of
Supervisors (weekly mailing, annual
subscription)
Proposed
Fee
Estimated
Quantitv
Estimated
Annual
Revenues
$120.00
70
$8,400
70.00
500
35,000
35.00
1,500
52,500
240.00
30
7,200
3.00
100
300
290.00
35
10,150
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
45
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item
Legislative packet-meeting of the Board of
Supervisors (each set)
Appeal Filing Conditional Use Permit (per
filing)
Late Filing-Application for Temporary Street
Closure Denial (per filing)
Appeal Filing-Temporary Street Closure (per
filing)
FAX Transmittal (per document)
Certification of Documents (per document)
Retrieving File of Board of Supervisors from
Storage (each file)
Total Estimated Annual Revenues
Proposed
Fee
Estimated
Quantitv
50
Estimated
Annual
Revenues
$4.00
$200
275.00
9
2,475
120.00
60
7,200
58.00
8
464
1.75
300
525
1.75
360
630
6.00
1,250
7.500
$132,544
Comment: Enterprise fund departments such as the Airport, Port and
Hetch Hetchy, reimburse the General Fund for
administrative costs through the City's Cost Allocation Plan.
According to the State Government Code, general
government costs, such as costs incurred by the Clerk of the
Board, may not be recovered through the Cost Allocation
Plan. The proposed ordinance would allow the Clerk of the
Board to defray these costs which cannot currently be
recovered under the City's Cost Allocation Plan. According
to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, the estimated
$132,544 in annual revenues would be treated as Board of
Supervisors departmental revenues of the City's General
Fund.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
46
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 15 -File 28-92-12
Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992, Finance Committee
meeting.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Resolution authorizing the Director of DPW to take necessary
measures to protect the health, welfare and property of the
citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary work
to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins,
side sewer vents and fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian
traffic.
$27^09
Source of Funds: Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund
Description: The City Charter requires property owners to maintain
sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and
fencing in front of and around their property. If there is a
complaint to the DPW about a damaged sidewalk, the DPW
notifies the appropriate property owner who in turn has 60
days to abate the problem. If the damage is not repaired
within 60 days, the DPW conducts the necessary repairs and
charges the property owner for the costs incurred. The funds
used to conduct the necessary repairs comes from the
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund. When the
property owners reimburse the City for the expenses to
conduct the repairs, the monies are deposited into the
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund.
The DPW normally issues an annual contract to a private
company to provide the repair services. However, the DPW
has a backlog of approximately 2,300 damaged properties and
has not selected a contractor for FY 1992-93. Thus, in
accordance with Section 6.3 of the City's Administrative
Code, the DPW has executed an emergency contract in the
amount of $27,309 with Tarn L. Williams Concrete
Contractors and Associates, a City certified WBE firm, to
conduct emergency repairs to various damaged sidewalks,
curbs, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and fencing.
Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
47
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 16 -File 114-92-7
Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy Committee
Meeting on December 8,1992 because of its fiscal impact.
Department: Department of Public Works
Bureau of Building Inspection
Item: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter I, of the San Francisco
Municipal Code (Building Code) by amending Section 104(b)
to provide that where a building permit application is filed by
a City department on or after January 1, 1992 to repair a
City-owned building under the bond-funded Public Safety
Improvement Projects, the building's existing electrical,
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or fife-safety systems
are not required to comply with this Building Code (a) if the
system complies with the Code in effect at the time of its
construction or installation, (b) if the system is safe to
continue to operate, and (c) if the system is not relocated,
altered for reuse, or expanded; adopting findings, including
that it is in the public interest to use Public Safety
Improvement Project Bond proceeds for earthquake hazard
reductions rather than for the upgrading of building systems,
as long as the existing systems, such as electrical systems, can
be operated safely.
Description: Chapter I, Section 104 of the Building Code describes when
previously constructed buildings must comply with current
Building Code requirements. According to Chapter 104, if any
system (such as an electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire
protection or life-safety systems) is removed during a
construction project, even if it is replaced without alteration,
that system must be upgraded to comply with the current
Building Code.
In June 1990, the San Francisco electorate approved a
proposition ($332.4 million) to authorize the issuance of bonds
to fund Earthquake Safety Programs, such as seismic
upgrades. These bonds are known as the Public Safety
Improvement Bonds. Seismic upgrades, asbestos abatement,
and disability access upgrades might require the temporary
removal of various building systems, including the electrical,
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or life-safety systems
during construction. These systems may be replaced,
unchanged, upon completion of construction.
In order to comply with the Building Code, the City must
upgrade all systems which are removed during construction to
48
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
meet current Building Code standards. According to the
proposed legislation, it is in the public interest to use the
Public Safety Improvement Project bond proceeds for their
principal purposes of earthquake hazard reduction, asbestos
abatement and disability access, rather than for the
upgrading of building systems, as long as the existing systems
can be operated safely.
The proposed ordinance would amend the Building Code to
exempt those City-owned building projects funded by the
Public Safety Improvement Bonds from the current Building
Code requirements regarding improvements for electrical,
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection and life safety systems,
providing that certain conditions are met. Specifically, in
order to be exempted from the Code, the system must: (1)
comply with the Code in effect at the time of its original
construction or installation; (2) be safe to continue to operate
in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Chief of the
Bureau of Fire Prevention and Safety; and (3) not be
relocated, altered for reuse or expanded.
Comments: 1. On June 13, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an
ordinance amending Chapters 14 and 15 of the Building Code,
pertaining to seismic retrofitting of private sector buildings, to
require seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry
buildings (UMBs). San Francisco voters subsequently passed a
maximum of a $350 million bond proposal to fund these UMB
seismic upgrading projects. That legislation provided that the
seismic strengthening work would not require alteration of
existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or
life-safety systems which are in compliance with the code in
effect at the time of their construction.
2. Under the $332.4 million Earthquake Safety Program, the
City is currently providing seismic upgrading to 23 buildings,
including major Civic Center buildings such as City Hall and
the War Memorial. These seismic upgrading costs are
estimated at approximately $204.8 million. The proposed
ordinance would exempt those buildings which have or will
file building permits on or after January 1, 1992 from the
current Building Code requirements relating to electrical,
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection and life safety upgrades,
in accordance with the regulations cited above.
3. According to Mr. Tom Thornton of the Department of
Public Works (DPW), the anticipated use of the Earthquake
Safety Bond Program bond proceeds do not include costs to
upgrade building systems. Although Mr. Thornton reports
49
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
that the DPW has not precisely estimated the additional cost
to the City if all the building systems under the Earthquake
Safety Program had to be upgraded, Mr. Thornton indicated
that the costs would be substantial. Given that these
substantial costs would affect the City's ability to meet the
construction and seismic upgrading projects funded under the
Earthquake Safety Program, with the potential of having to
issue more bonds, the proposed ordinance was determined to
have a fiscal impact.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
50
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 17 File 51-92-3
Note: This item was continued at the December 2, 1992 Finance Committee
meeting.
1. This item transmits 19 City employees' claims for reimbursement for
personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty for the three month
period of July, August and September, 1992.
2. Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. After
reviewing the claim submitted, including the Department Head's certification
that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount certified for
payment is fair and reasonable, the Controller makes a recommendation for
reimbursement or denial of the claim.
3. Nineteen City employees submitted claims for reimbursement for the
three month period of July, August and September, 1992. After reviewing the 19
claims submitted, the Controller's Office recommends the approval of seven
claims in the total amount of $2,071.08 and the denial of 12 claims. The
Controller's listing of the claimants, amounts claimed, amounts recommended
by the Controller's Office and the Controller's comments is attached.
Comment
The Controller's Office has certified that funds are available in the General
Fund claims and judgements budget for reimbursement of the seven claims
totaling $2,071.08.
Recommendation
Prepare in and report out a resolution authorizing the reimbursement of
seven employee claims in the total amount of $2,071.08, as recommended by the
Controller's Office.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
51
DEC 10 '92 01 :32PM CCSF CONTROLLER'S OFFICE
rile No. 51-92-3
Attachment
Page 1 of 2
Date: December 3, 1992
REIMBURSEMENT; FOR DAMAGED OR STOLEN PERSONAL PROPERTY OB* CITY EMPLOYEES
Department
Claimant
Public Health
Amount
Claimed
Amount
Recommended
Controllers
Comments
Mark Freeman
467.90
487.90
Valerie Sroller
Rickey L. Jackson
38.34
97.00
38.34
-0-
Medical equipment
stolen from auto
required for work .
No evidence of
negligence.
Damaged wearing
apparel in course of
job duties
Deny. Loss not work
related.
Prank Valdez Jr.
Mary Jo Moore
Anna Grajeda
Marie A. Hitchcock
Marcella Holzman
Mary Murphy
Alice Hoimeoth
350-00
190.00
50.00
1,589.59
209.55
180.00
118.00
-0-
190.00
1,000.00
-0-
100.00
-0-
Deny . Auto not
required for work.
Eyeglasses damaged
in line of duty.
Deny . Not required
for performance of
job.
Not technically an
employee claim,
however City liable
for damage. Approve
insurance
deductible.
Deny . No
liability.
City
Allow insurance
deductible.
Deny . Items not
required for
performance of job.
52
DEC 10 '92 01 =33PM CCSF CONTROLLER'S OFFICE
- 2
ne Clark
Icing & Traffic
r.hard Garkus
:ey M. Huang
879.95
185.84
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
-0- Deny. Items not
required for
performance of job.
185.84 Stolen tools covered
by MOU.
-0- Deny. Auto not
required for job.
Claim already denied
by City Attorney.
|£or
rilyn Sue Lee
524.00
69.00 Allow calculator.
Personal items not
required for work.
:er Department
tia K. Kinna
quired for work.
creation and Park
tricia A. Cull
rues Payne
ystal K.D. Huie
1,000.00
82.93
50.00
50.42
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Deny .
Items nor
Department
Head
di s approved .
Department
Head
di » approved .
Deny.
N o
department
head
approval .
nicipal Railway
lton Gee
395.73
-0- Auto not required
for job. Possible
retribution for
discipline .
53
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Item 18 -File 64-92-24.1
Departments:
Item:
Location;
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Description:
Real Estate
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families
Resolution authorizing an amendment to an existing lease of
real property.
Suite 260, 10 United Nations Plaza
Office space for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and
their Families.
Ten United Nations Plaza Associates
In November, 1991 the electorate approved Proposition J to
amend the San Francisco Charter to create the San
Francisco Children's Fund to be expended exclusively to
provide services for children, above and beyond services
already funded in the City's budget. The Mayor's Office of
Children, Youth and their Families, established to
administer the Children's Fund, currently occupies space on
the second floor of Ten United Nations Plaza under a four
year lease that began on October 1, 1992 and will end on
September 30, 1996.
Details of the current lease for this space and the proposed
amendment to the lease are as follows:
Square Feet (approximately)
Monthly Rent
Annual Rent
Cost Per Sq. Ft. Per Month
Current Proposed Lease As
Lease Amendment Amended
1,500 1,251 2,751
$1,875
$22,500
$1.25
$1,553.75
$18,645
$1.25
$3,428.75
$41,145
$1.25
When the current lease for space was approved, the Mayor's
Office of Children, Youth and their Families had a staff of ten
full-time employees. After subtracting 200 square feet
occupied by a conference room from the approximately 1,500
square feet currently leased, each of the ten full-time
employees on average occupied a workspace of approximately
130 square feet.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
54
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
Comments:
The Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families
currently has a staff of 12 full-time employees and three
student interns that together require a thirteenth workspace
Two additional full-time employees will be added on January
1, 1993 and more employees will be added in the next six
months in order to administer the selection and operations of
additional community based operators of children's services.
Based on 15 workspaces (12 full-time employees, a single
workspace for the three interns and two new full-time
employees as of January 1, 1993) and after subtracting 200
square feet for the current conference room and 150 square
feet for a second conference room included in the proposed
additional space, the total 2,751 square feet of space, on
average, would provide approximately 160 square feet per
workspace. This average will decrease as more employees
are hired.
The proposed lease amendment would become effective on
January 1, 1992 or as soon as the lessor completes tenant
improvements and shall end on September 30, 1996,
approximately a three year and nine month period. Tenent
improvements include installation of partitions between
offices, painting and improvements to restrooms to
accommodate handicapped employees. The costs of these
improvements will be borne by the lessor.
1. Monthly rent includes gas, electricity, water, scavenger
and janitorial utility costs.
2. The current lease began on October 1, 1992. However, the
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families has
occupied the currently leased space and some of the proposed
space since July 1, 1992. Rent for the 1,500 square feet of space
currently leased was on a month-to-month basis between
July 1, and October 1, 1992. There was no charge for the
overflow portion of the proposed space that was occupied
between July 1, and October 1, 1992.
3. Prior to July 1, 1992, the single position of the Mayor's
Office of Children, Youth and their Families occupied space
in the Mayor's Office of Community Development offices at 10
United Nations Plaza on a temporary basis until the creation
of the San Francisco Children's Fund that funds the Mayor's
Office of Children, Youth and their Families programs.
4. The Real Estate Department reports that the fair market
value of space at Ten United Nations Plaza is $1.25 per square
foot per month.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
55
Memo to Finance Committee
December 16, 1992
5. The Real Estate Department indicates that rent for the first
five months of the proposed lease amendment will be free
because the lessor will realize a savings by not having to
construct a permanent fire wall to separate the space that the
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families
currently occupies from the space that would have been
occupied by another tenant, but is now proposed as additional
space for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their
Families.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
Harvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
56
CALENDAR - /Wfc
SPECIAL MEETING OF
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
/
MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1992 - 10:00 A.M.
ROOM 228, CITY HALL
PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
DOT" '»'«itj5 r>-^ T
DEC 2 2 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
File 101-92-17 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $471,335, District
Attorney, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits (for weekend
rebooking services). (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $438,295, District Attorney, for permanent salaries,
related mandatory fringe benefits (for weekend rebooking services)."
File 101-92-18 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $106,826, Municipal
Court, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits and professional
services (jail overcrowding). (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $106,826, Municipal Court, for permanent salaries,
related mandatory fringe benefits and professional services (jail
overcrowding); placing $60,000 on reserve."
File 102-92-8 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance,
1992-93, Municipal Court, reflecting the addition of one position (Classification 0215
Bail Commissioner); companion measure to File 101-92-18. (Civil Service
Commission)
ACTION: Recommended.
File 101-92-19 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $4,515,011, Sheriff,
for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits, subsistence, materials and
supplies, and services of other departments Gail overcrowding). (Supervisor
Gonzalez)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $3,954,879, Sheriff, for permanent salaries, related
mandatory fringe benefits, subsistence, materials and supplies, and
services of other departments (jail overcrowding); providing for
ratification of action previously taken; and providing for 90-day
reporting requirement."
File 102-92-9 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance,
1992-93, Sheriff's Office, reflecting the addition of twenty-four positions
(Classifications 8304 L, Deputy Sheriff (20), 8306 L, Senior Deputy Sheriff (2) and
8274 L, Police Cadet (2); companion measure to File 101-92-19. (Civil Service
Commission)
ACTION: Recommended.
City Report
CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 MARKET STREET. SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
December 18, 1992
TO: Finance Committee
FROM; Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: December 21, 1992 Special Finance Committee Meeting
Items 1- Files 101-92-17
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
District Attorney
Supplemental appropriation ordinance for permanent
salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits.
$471,335
General Fund General Reserve
The District Attorney is requesting funding to pay for
additional personnel for weekend rebooking services. These
services have been made available to the Police Department
since 1988, but, according to the District Attorney, such
services can no longer be provided with existing personnel
due to budget cuts and related staff shortages. Weekend
rebooking services consist of a review by the District
Attorney's Office of all felony arrests, in custody
misdemeanor arrests and urgent requests for arrest
warrants in order to determine if charges should be filed.
The supplemental appropriation ordinance would allow the
District Attorney to hire five additional positions to
accomplish weekend rebooking services as follows:
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Annual
Biweekly Salary at
Add Position Salary Range Top Step
3 8180 Principal Attorney $3,093-$3,760 $98,136
1 1460 Legal Secretary II 1,491-1,809 47,215
1 8146 Investigator 1,666-2,023 52,800
Total
The District Attorney has provided the following budget of the
proposed supplemental appropriation which covers the
period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993:
Description Amount
Personnel
Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous:
3 8180 Principal Attorneys, Step V $294,408
1 1460 Legal Secretary II, Step V 47,215
1 8 146 Investigator, Step V 52.800
Salary Subtotal $394,423
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 76.912
Total Personnel Costs $471,335
The District Attorney advises that the 1992-93 approved
budget, which required excessive salary savings imposed by
the Mayor, and other budget reductions, resulted in the
elimination of weekend rebookings except through voluntary
overtime of attorneys. The District Attorney concludes that
the use of voluntary overtime to continue the activity of
weekend rebookings is no longer feasible, because the
compensatory time off (one hour off for each hour spent,
according to the District Attorney's Office) adds to the
Department's current staff shortages, including the
Department's decision to furlough staff attorneys and
investigators for eight working days without pay.
Effective November 9, 1992, the District Attorney had advised
the then Acting Chief of Police that the District Attorney's
daytime Felony Intake Unit will only process cases from 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and custody
rebookings from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays, and will
be closed on Saturdays and all holidays given the anticipated
number of cases expected on Sundays.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Comments: 1. The District Attorney advises that $293,000 was
appropriated in 1988-89 to hire three 8180 Principal
Attorneys, 1 Legal Secretary II and 1 Investigator to initiate
weekend booking services. However, in the following fiscal
year, the deletion of 6 staff positions in the Prosecution
Division (3 8176 Trial Attorneys and 5 Investigators)
jeopardized the continuation of weekend rebooking services
that had been initiated during the previous fiscal year,
although the District Attorney continued to provide these
services through voluntary overtime and personnel
reassignments.
2. For the District Attorney's Prosecution Division, salary
savings went from $839,841 for 1991-92 fiscal year to $1,092,130
for the 1992-93 fiscal year, a $252,289 increase, representing a
30 percent increase. Such salary savings were imposed in the
Mayor's Budget for FY 1992-93.
3. Ms. Bridget Bane of the District Attorney's Office reports
that weekend rebookings during the 17 month period July,
1991 through November, 1992 resulted in the release of 2,713
prisoners from the San Francisco Jails as follows:
Period
July 1991 - December 1991
January 1992 - June 1992
July 1992 - November 1992
Total
Average Number of
Total
Total
Prisoner Releases
Releases
Weekends
Per Weekend
640
26
24.62
1,055
26
40.58
1.018
22
46.27
2,713
74
36.66
4. A comparison of early jail releases associated with the
District Attorney's weekend rebooking activity and average
daily jail overcrowding for the 17 month period between July,
1991 and November of 1992 indicates that early jail releases,
resulting from the District Attorney's rebooking services,
reduces overcrowding by a consistent percentage of between
approximately 8 to 9 percent of the total average daily
overcrowding in the City jails, as follows:
Period
July 1991 - December 1991
January 1992 - June 1992
July 1992 - November 1992
Average
Daily Jail
Overcrowding
287
500
561
Average No.
of Weekend
Releases From D.A.
Rebooking Services
24.62
40.58
46.27
Percent
Releases
of Total
Overcrowding
8.58
8.12
8.27
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
5. The District Attorney advises that the $471,335 request to
hire five new positions would in effect be used to offset the
budgeted amount of salary savings in the current 1992-93
budget from 8.9 percent to 5.0 percent of total salaries in the
District Attorney's Prosecution Division as follows:
District Attorney's (DA) Prosecution Division FY 1992-93 Budget
Total
Budgeted Salary Percent
Salaries Savings of Total
DA Prosecution Division $12,222,765 $1,092,130 8.9
Less: This Supplemental
to Reduce Salary Savings 471.335 3_i9_
Revised Salary Savings $620,795 5.0
6. The Family Violence Project is currently included in the
District Attorney's 1992-93 budget. At their meeting of
December 16, 1992, the Finance Committee reported out a
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-20) that
would transfer some of the Family Violence Project functions
from the District Attorney's Office to the Sheriffs Office. That
supplemental appropriation ordinance will be considered by
the Board of Supervisors on December 21, 1992. If that request
is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the $83,277
remaining in the District Attorney's budget that is currently
designated for the Family Violence Project functions, that
would be transferred to the Sheriffs Office, should be used as
a funding source for the proposed supplemental
appropriation request to provide weekend rebooking services
in the District Attorney's Office. To effect this change, the
proposed supplemental appropriation should be amended to
reduce the funding from the General Fund General Reserve
by $83,277 from $471,335 to $388,058 and to insert an additional
entry to transfer the $83,277 currently budgeted in the District
Attorney's Family Violence Project to the District Attorney's
Prosecution Division budget. The District Attorney's Office
states that the Mayor's Office has advised them that the
$83,277 should remain in the District Attorney's Family
Violence Project budget and would not be available for
transfer to the Prosecution Division. The Budget Analyst
believes that leaving the $83,277 in the District Attorney's
Family Violence Project budget would be inconsistent with
the Finance Committee's intention to transfer these Family
Violence Project functions to the Sheriff.
Recommendation: Reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance
by $83,277 from $471,335 to $388,058.
BOARD OF SI TPKRVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Items 2 and 3 - Files 101-92-18 and 102-92-8
Department
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Municipal Court
Item 2 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-
18) for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits
and professional services.
Item 3 - Ordinance (File 102-92-8) to amend the Annual
Salary Ordinance to create one new position.
$106,826
General Fund - General Reserve
The Municipal Court is proposing two actions to help ease the
jail overcrowding that has resulted in the City being assessed
$2.9 million in contempt fines by the Federal Court. The
Municipal Court is proposing to hire a Bail Commissioner
for a six month pilot project to determine what affect a Bail
Commissioner position would have on reducing jail
overcrowding.
The Municipal Court is also proposing to spend $60,000 on a
professional services contract with a criminal justice
consulting firm that has expertise in evaluating pretrial
alternatives to jail sentences.
The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-8) to amend the 1992-93
Annual Salary Ordinance would create one new limited term
position as follows:
Monthly Annual
Classification Salary Salary
0215 L Bail Commissioner $6,423 $77,076
The proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (File
101-92-18) would fund the proposed new position and
professional services contract for the period January 1, 1993
through June 30, 1993 as follows:
Personnel
0215 L Bail Commissioner $38,540
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 8.286
Subtotal -Personnel $46,826
Professional Services 60.000
Total Proposed Supplemental Appropriation $106,826
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
i)ui\/ i L v r AVAi vcrr
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Comments: 1. In November 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution declaring the intent of the Board to establish a Bail
Commissioner position for the Municipal Court (File 198-92-
3). The proposed Bail Commissioner position would be a
limited term (L) six month position. During this period, the
Municipal Court would operate a six month pilot project to
determine the impact of the new Bail Commissioner position
on reductions in jail overcrowding. If the Bail Commissioner
has an impact in reducing jail overcrowding, the Municipal
Court would request that the position be made permanent in
the 1993-94 budget.
2. When the Board of Supervisors approved the resolution
declaring intent to establish the Bail Commissioner position
in November 1992, the new position was intended to be funded
out of the General Fund Litigation Reserve which was
established to meet the terms of the Jail Overcrowding
Consent Decree. However, because the Sheriff has requested
a separate supplemental appropriation of approximately $4.5
million (see File 101-92-19 Item 4 of this report), from the
Litigation Reserve account, the source of funds for the
proposed Bail Commissioner position is now the General
Fund - General Reserve.
3. As noted above, the Municipal Court also proposes to spend
$60,000 to hire a criminal justice consulting firm that is an
expert in evaluating pretrial alternatives to jail sentences. At
this time, the Municipal Court has not yet selected a
contractor and, therefore, information is not available on the
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractor or the contract details
and the hourly rates of the contractor. Further, the
Municipal Court has applied for a $20,000 grant from the
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) for an assessment of
pretrial procedures, including a review of alternative pretrial
release options, and an assessment of the impact of the Bail
Commissioner Pilot Project. This $20,000 grant, if received, is
intended to partially offset the proposed $60,000 expenditure
for professional services. The proposed supplemental
appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-18) should be amended
to place the $60,000 on reserve pending the selection of the
contractor and submission of detailed contract cost data and
pending receipt of the NIC grant.
4. The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File
101-92-18) includes $8,286 for mandatory fringe benefits for
the 0215 Bail Commissioner position. However, since the
proposed position is a temporary L position lasting only six
months, no fringe benefits would be paid for this position.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21. 1992
Therefore, the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance should be amended to reduce Mandatory Fringe
Benefits by 88,286 from $8,286 to $0.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance (File 101-92-18) to reserve $60,000 for Professional
Services pending the selection of the contractor, contract cost
details, hourly rates, MBE/WBE status of the contractor and
status of the pending NIC grant.
2. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance (File 101-92-18) to reduce Mandatory Fringe
benefits by $8,286 from $8,286 to $0.
3. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-92-18) as
amended.
4. Approve the proposed amendment to the Annual Salary
Ordinance (File 102-92-8).
KOARDOFSlTPKKVLSOltS
HI IIK;ET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Items 4 and 5 - Files 101-92-19 and 102-92-9
Department
Items:
Amount:
Sheriff
Item 4 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-
19) for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe
benefits, subsistence, materials and supplies, and services of
other departments.
Item 5 - Ordinance (File 102-92-9) to amend the Annual
Salary Ordinance to create 24 new positions.
$4,515,011
Source of Funds: General Fund Litigation Reserve
Description: On October 15, 1992 the Federal Court imposed fines on the
City for jail overcrowding based on $300 per prisoner per day
for total cumulative fines of $3,829,700 for the eleven month
period from January through November, 1992. A description
of these fines and the average daily overcrowding of prisoners
are as follows:
Average
Amount Number Daily
Period of Fines of Davs Overcrowding
January - August
September
October
November *
Total
$2,953,100
161,000
268,000
447.600
$3,829,700
244
30
31
_30_
335
40.34
17.89
28.82
49.73
Preliminary estimate, to be verified by U.S. Court Special Master.
The $3,829,700 in fines paid by the City to the Federal Court
was put into a special escrow account by the Federal Court.
Mr. James Harrigan of the Sheriffs Office reports that a
portion of monies in the special escrow account may be
returned to the City to help alleviate jail overcrowding.
The fines, however, only represent the overcrowding of
prisoners at one of the four City Jails (County Jail No. 1) and
do not reflect total jail overcrowding in the City. According to
data provided by the Sheriff on daily prisoner counts since
July 1992, between 480 and 632 prisoners daily, excluding
weekends and holidays, exceed the total City's jail capacity of
1,652. If the Federal Court were to assess fines on the total
excess prisoner populations at all four of the City's jails, the
HOARD OF SUPKKV1SOHS
HUIX.'LT ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
daily fine could be between $144,000 and $189,600 based on 480
and 632 prisoners respectively.
In order to alleviate the overcrowding in the City's jails, the
Sheriff proposes the additional new staff to transport
prisoners from the City's jails to Alameda County jails (the
City has a previously approved contract with Alameda
County to purchase beds at Alameda County's jails). The
Sheriff is also proposing two new programs, the Contract Bed
Coordination Program and the Residential Bed Placement
Screening Unit, to mitigate overcrowding.
The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-9) to amend the 1992-93
Annual Salary Ordinance would create 24 new positions
including 19 new positions to transport prisoners to and from
the Alameda County Jail, and 5 new positions to establish
two special units to assist in placing prisoners in alternative
programs including Home Detention, Sheriffs Work
Alternative Program (SWAP), Work Furlough, County
Parole and residential programs, as follows:
No. Classification
Expansion of the Use of Alameda County Jail
1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff
18 8304 Deputy Sheriff
Contract Bed Coordination
1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff
1 8274 Police Cadet
Residential Bed Placement Screening Unit
2 8304 Deputy Sheriff
1_ 8274 Police Cadet
24
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File
101-92-19) would fund the proposed 24 new positions for six
months from 1/93 to 6/93, subsistence costs for 12 months and
other costs as follows:
Personnel
Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous:
1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff ( 12.8 B WPP @ $1,827) $23,386
18 8304 Deputy Sheriff (12.8 BWPP@ $1,499) 345,370
1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff (13 BWPP @ $1,827)* 23,751
2 8304 Deputy Sheriff (13 BWPP @ $1,499)* 38,974
2 8274 Police Cadet (13 BWPP @ $822)* 21,372
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 49.099
Subtotal-Personnel (24) $ 501,952
* The Sheriff is requesting two additional workdays or 13.0 BWPP total.
BOARD OF SI JPKRVTSOT^ S
BUDGET ANALYST
Biweekly
Salary
Range
Annual
Salary At
Top Step
$1,580-1,918
1,429-1,731
$50,060
45,179
1,580-1,918
822-822
50,060
21,454
1,429-1,731
822-822
45,179
21,454
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Subsistence Costs
• Payment for Current Beds at Alameda Jail $921,891
• Expanded Use of Walden House, (Alternative
Housing) 20 beds x $60 per day x 273 days 327,600
• Expanded Use of Milestones Housing (Alternative
Housing) 25 beds x $45 per day x 273 days 307,125
• Expanded Use of Alameda Jail (Additional
Floor) 121 beds x $63.10 per day x 181 days 1,381,953
• Residential Community Placement Beds
100 beds x $55 per day x 180 days 990,000
Subtotal- Subsistence 3,928,569
Other Costs
Uniforms ($1,710 x 19 personnel)* 32,490
Safety Supplies 10,000
Building Repair (Sallyport Security) 42.000
Subtotal-Other Costs 84.490
Total $4,515,011
* see explanation below under other costs
Expand the Use of Alameda County Jail
The proposed staffing (18 Deputy Sheriffs and 1 Senior Deputy
Sheriff) to expand the use of Alameda County Jail is based on
a 5 day work week of 12 hours each day or a total of 60 hours
per week. Therefore, 18 full time (40 hours per week) Deputy
Sheriff positions are required in order to have 12 Deputy
Sheriff positions on duty at all times. A Senior Deputy Sheriff
will supervise this operation. The distribution of 12 Deputy
Sheriff and 1 Senior Deputy Sheriff positions would be as
follows:
County Jail #2: 2 Deputy Sheriff positions to process and
house additional prisoners going to and from the Alameda
County Jail; 2 Deputy Sheriff positions to identify, classify
and screen prisoners and to select eligible prisoners for San
Bruno and Alameda, prepare paperwork and act as a liaison
with medical and psychology staff; 1 Deputy Sheriff position
to cover increased holding cell area for prisoners being
transported to and from Alameda County Jail and San Bruno
Jails (total of 5 Deputy Sheriff positions).
County Jail #3: 2 Deputy Sheriff positions to process
prisoners coming from Alameda County Jail back to San
Bruno Jail. Processing includes strip searches, property
searches of personal belongings and related paperwork; 1
Deputy Sheriff position to identify, classify and screen and to
select prisoners scheduled for movement and to prepare
necessary paperwork (total of 3 Deputy Sheriff DO litions).
BOARD OF SIH'KUVISPHS
BUDGET ANALYST
in
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Transport of Prisoners between Jail Facilities and Courts: 4
Deputy Sheriff positions and 1 Senior Deputy Sheriff position
to transport all prisoners between the Hall of Justice, San
Bruno and Alameda which includes court appearances
including court appearances resulting in a bail release,
special transports pursuant to court order and weekend
transports from Alameda to the Hall of Justice for interviews
by the Public Defender's staff (total of 4 Deputy Sheriff
positions and 1 Senior Deputy Sheriff position).
Contract Bed Coordination
The proposed staffing (1 Senior Deputy Sheriff position and 1
Police Cadet) would insure optimal use of various residential
placements, track and report success and failure rates to the
Sheriff, Courts and other interested parties, evaluate
effectiveness of residential treatment programs, recommend
improvements to the programs, mediate contract disputes
and monitor contract compliance and seek out other
appropriate placements and act as a liaison with other
residential treatment programs.
Residential Bed Placement Screening Unit
The proposed staffing (2 Deputy Sheriff positions and 1 Police
Cadet) would create a Classification Screening Unit to
systematically identify, classify and individually screen all
sentenced and unsentenced prisoners for alternative
program placement. Classification and screening of each
prisoner includes obtaining current offense status, criminal
and personal history and current personal characteristics
and problems. Individual interviews with prisoners will be
required. Officers will coordinate the transfer of eligible
prisoners from the county jail to Home Detention, Sheriffs
Work Alternative Program (SWAP), Work Furlough, County
Parole, Residential Treatment Programs and other
appropriate placements.
Payment of Current Beds at Alameda Jail
The proposed supplemental appropriation includes costs
already incurred for the housing of prisoners at Alameda
Jail because the Sheriffs 1992-93 budget is not sufficient to
meet the increased need for beds to avoid overcrowding. The
proposed supplemental appropriation also includes future
costs to be incurred for the housing of prisoners at Alameda
Jail through June 30, 1993. The Sheriff is paying for 230 beds
beginning June 26, 1992 and 240 beds from October 23, 1992
BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
through June 30, 1993. A distribution of these costs are as
follows:
Payment for Current Beds at Alameda Jail includes:
Overage costs for 5 days during FY 1991-92
(230 beds x 63. 10 per bed per day x 5 days) 72,565
Difference FY 1992-93, 230 actual beds vs. 200
budgeted beds, (30 beds x 63. 10 x 365 days) 690,945
Add 10 beds (from 230 to 240 total beds) beginning
10-23/92 (10 beds x 63.10x251 days) 158.381
Subtotal $921,891
The Sheriff is paying for 230 beds beginning June 26, 1992
and 240 beds beginning October 23, 1992. Costs totaling
$460,000 ($72,565 + $344,526 + $42,909) of the proposed
$921,891 that have been expended prior to December 30, 1992
should be approved retroactively as indicated herewith:
Subsistence Cost
Categories
Overage Costs for Five Days
during FY 1991-92
Difference between 230 Actual Beds
and 200 Budgeted Beds
Additional 10 Beds increasing
Total Beds from 230 to 240 Beds
Period
Period
7/1/92-12/29/92
12/30/92 - 6/30/93
Total
$72^65
$
$72,565
344^26
346,419
690,945
42.909
115472
15&3S1
$460,000
$461,891
$921^91
Totals
Expanded Use of Walden House
The proposed supplemental appropriation provides for
increasing the number of residential treatment beds to 20
beds per day from October 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 for a
total cost of $327,600 (20 beds x 60.00 per bed per day x 273
days) of which $108,000 was expended prior to December 30,
1992 and therefore should be approved retroactively.
Expanded Use of Milestones Housing
The proposed supplemental appropriation provides for
continuing the use of 25 residential treatment beds per day
from October 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 for a total cost of
$307,125 (25 beds x 45.00 per bed per day x 273 days) of which
$101,250 was expended prior to December 30, 1992 and
therefore should be approved retroactively
HOARD OF SUI'KKVIS P 1 £
BUDOirr ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Expanded Use of Alameda Jail (Additional Floor)
The proposed supplemental appropriation provides for an
additional 121 beds per day at Alameda Jail to alleviate jail
overcrowding in San Francisco. The proposed funding of
$1,381,953 (121 beds x 63.10 per bed per day x 181 days) would
use the additional beds from January 1, 1993 through June
30, 1993 (see Comment 1).
Residential Community Placement Beds
The Sheriff proposes to use Residential Community
Placement Beds for Pre-Trial detainees and sentenced
prisoners for the six month period, January through June
1993. The average daily cost for a contracted bed is $55.00.
The Sheriff estimates that between 75 to 100 beds are available
which can be filled within a ninety day period for a total cost
of $990,000 (100 beds x 55.00 per bed per day x 180 days, see
Comment 2).
Other Costs
The proposed supplemental appropriation includes $32,490
for uniforms including Class A, B and C uniforms (A -
special events, B - for use as court bailiffs and C - jump suit
for custody work at the jails), plus gun, gun holster, speed
loader, belt handcuff with case, mace container with holder,
two batons (26 and 36 inch lengths), bullet proof vest and
flashlight with holder. Because the cost of the uniforms in
the amount of $32,490 is for only 19 additional personnel (19 x
$1,710) as identified in the proposed legislation, the Sheriff
will be required to identify funding for an additional $8,550 (5
x $1,710) for the remaining five personnel to be added by the
subject legislation from other resources.
The proposed supplemental appropriation includes $10,000
for safety equipment to transport prisoners between the jails,
the Courts and Alameda County Jail. The safety equipment
includes handcuffs, belly chains, leg irons and braces and
other restraint gear need for prisoner transportation.
The proposed supplemental appropriation includes $42,000
for building improvements at County Jail #3 to improve
Sallyport Security at County Jail #3 (San Bruno) to facilitate
rapid and safe transport of as many as 300 prisoners per day.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
13
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
Comments: 1. In reviewing the proposed expanded use of Alameda Jail
with the Budget Analyst, the Sheriff indicates that more lead
time is required to add 121 beds at the Alameda Jail. Revising
the starting date from January 1, 1993 to January 23, 1993 as
recommended by the Sheriff, results in a reduced need in the
subsistence activity cost of $167,972 from $1,381,953 to
$1,213,981 (121 beds x 63.10 per bed per day x 22 days).
2. The Sheriff also concurs with the Budget Analyst, that,
since new personnel cannot be hired before December 29,
1992, the Residential Community Placement Beds cannot
begin and be fully operational for at least 30 days. Under
these circumstances the Sheriff concurs that the subsistence
portion of this program cannot begin until 2/1/93 including
100 beds on that date to be distributed between two or more
community providers. Therefore the cost of this activity
should be reduced $165,000 from $990,000 to $825,000 (100 beds
x 55.00 x 150 days).
3. A summary of the above recommended revisions
(Comments 1 and 2) to the Subsistence budget of the proposed
supplemental appropriation is as follows:
Category
Additional Floor at
Alameda Jail
Residential Community
Placement Beds
Total
Original
Proposed
Revision
$1,381,953 $1,213,981
Budget Analyst's
Recommended
Reductions
$167,972
990,000
825.000
$2,371,953* $2,038,981
165.000
$332,972
* Total requested Subsistence Costs equal $3,928,569.
4. A summary of the subsistence cost to be approved
retroactively as detailed in the above description of the
proposed supplemental appropriation is as follows:
Subsistence Cost
Categories
Amount to be
Approved Retroactively
Payment of Current Beds at
Alameda Jail
Expanded Use of Walden House
Expanded Use of Milestones Housing
Total
$460,000
108,000
101.250
$669
BOARD OF SUPKKVISPHS
BUDCKT ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
5. According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office,
the General Fund Litigation Reserve Fund includes an
amount of $4,500,000 which has been set aside for the purpose
of mitigating jail overcrowding. The current balance in this
Fund, excluding this $4,500,000, is $5,300,000 which Mr.
Madden advises is committed to the payment of several
individual claims against the City that are currently
pending. If the Board of Supervisors accepts the Budget
Analyst's recommended reductions of $332,972 (Comment 3)
to the proposed supplemental appropriation, the set-aside of
$4,500,000 for mitigating jail overcrowding in the General
Fund Litigation Reserve would have a balance of $317,961 for
other eligible costs as follows:
Set Aside in General Fund Litigation Reserve
for Jail Overcrowding $4,500,000
Supplemental Appropriation (subject of this request) $4,515,011
Less: Budget Analyst's Recommended Reductions 332,972
4.182.039
Balance of Set-aside for Jail Overcrowding $ 317,961
6. The proposed supplemental would provide for 49,794
prisoner days (506 total beds) at either Alameda County Jail
(361 total beds) or in alternative residential housing facilities
(145 total beds) as of December 30, 1992 or as indicated for a
later starting date. If the situation were such that all of these
beds were needed but not available, the Federal Court could
fine the City a total of $14,938,200 (49,794 prisoner days x $300
per day fine).
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance (File 101-92-19) to reduce funding for Subsistence
Costs by $332,972 from $3,928,569 to $3,595,597 as detailed in
Comment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above. Further, amend the
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance by
approving $669,250 of the amended $3,595,597 in Subsistence
Costs retroactively as detailed in Comment 4 above. Approve
the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance as
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance Committee
December 21, 1992
2. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 102-92-9) to amend
the Annual Salarv Ordinance.
Harvey M. Rose
Supervisor Gonzalez
Supervisor Migden
Supervisor Hallinan
President Shelley
Supervisor Achtenberg
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Britt
Supervisor Conroy
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Kennedy
Supervisor Maher
Clerk of the Board
Chief Administrative Officer
Controller
Jean Mariani
Barbara Kolesar
Ted Lakey
BOARD OK SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
BOARD of SUPERVISORS
DECEMBER 16, 1992
City Hall
San Francisco 94102
554-5184
DOCI 1MFMTS DEPT:
DEC 2 1 1992
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING
FINANCE COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Finance Committee for Wednesday, December
23, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.
The next regular meeting of the Finance Committee will
be held on Wednesday, December 30 1992, at 2:00 p.m., in
the Room 228, City Hall.
Please note that the Finance Committee will hold a
special meeting on Monday, December 21, 1992, at 10:00
a.m., in Room 228, City Hall.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROOM 235, CITY HALL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
IMPORTANT
HEARING NOTICE
0152
SF Public Library (2)
Document Section
CALENDAR
SPECIAL MEETI NG O F
FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1992 - 10:00 A.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL
MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
1. File 101-92-17 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $471,335, District
Attorney, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits (for weekend
rebooking services). (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION:
2. File 101-92-18 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $106,826, Municipal
Court, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits and professional
services (jail overcrowding). (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION:
3. File 102-92-8 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance,
1992-93, Municipal Court, reflecting the addition of one position (Classification 0215
L Bail Commissioner); companion measure to File 101-92-18. (Civil Service
Commission)
ACTION:
4. File 101-92-19 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $4,515,011, Sheriff,
for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits, subsistence, materials and
supplies, and services of other departments (jail overcrowding). (Supervisor
Gonzalez)
ACTION:
5. File 102-92-9 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance,
1992-93, Sheriff's Office, reflecting the addition of twenty-four positions
(Classifications 8304 L, Deputy Sheriff (20), 8306 L, Senior Deputy Sheriff (2) and
8274 L, Police Cadet (2); companion measure to File 101-92-19. (Civil Service
Commission)
ACTION:
fa
r o o\ MEETING OF
^* ^FINANCE COMMITTEE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A LEND A R- Soft's '^-k*^
<d
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL
PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall,
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate
item.
(a) File 28-92-13 . [Airport Administration] Resolution approving a declaration of
emergency, emergency repairs, power distribution system, plot 7 and vicinity , #
Airport Contract No. 3201, San Francisco International Airport - $220,000.
(Airports Commission)
ACTION: Amended on lines 4 and 19 by replacing "$220,000.00" with
"$161,650.24". Recommended as amended. New title: "Approving
a declaration of emergency, emergency repairs, power distribution
system, plot 7 and vicinity, Airport Contract No. 3201, San
Francisco International Airport - $161,650.24." (To Board as a
Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 1993.)
JAN 41993
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
(b) File 147-92-7 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the San Francisco
Public Library to apply for, accept and expend funds not to exceed $65,528
available through the California State Library from Title I of the Library
Services and Construction Act for Major Urban Resource Libraries for Fiscal
Year 1992/93. (Public Library)
ACTION: Amended on page 1, lines 2 and 20, after "expend", by adding
"retroactively". Further amended on page 1, at the end of line 5,
by adding "waiving indirect costs". Recommended as amended.
New title: "Authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to apply
for, accept and expend, retroactively, funds not to exceed $65,528
available through the California State Library from Title I of the
Library Services and Construction Act for Major Urban Resource
Libraries for Fiscal Year 1992/93; waiving indirect costs." (To
Board as a Committee Report for consideration on January 4,
1993.)
(c) File 147-92-8 . [Grant - Private Corporate Funds] Resolution authorizing the
City Librarian to apply for equipment valued at $405,416.85 available from the
Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital Equipment Corporation for
creating the AIDS Library /Information Network; waiving indirect costs.
(Public Library)
ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting.
(d) File 101-90-121.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds,
Public Utilities Commission, Water Department's 1991 Series-A Revenue Bond,
in the of amount 10.5 million, for the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining
Project. (Public Utilities Commission)
ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $6 million recommended. Filed.
REGULAR CALENDAR
2. File 69-92-1 . [Supplemental Appropriation Request] Motion directing the Clerk of
the Board to submit to his Honor, the Mayor, a request that the Mayor submit a
supplemental appropriation of $30,802 to the Board of Supervisors for services of the
Budget Analyst, using funds which have accumulated in the Cable Television Access
and Development Fund. (Supervisor Hallinan)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
3. File 97-92-40 . [Veterans Affairs Officer] Ordinance amending Administrative Code
by adding Section 5. 108. A to establish a County Veteran Service Officer within the
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. (Supervisor Gonzalez)
(Transferred from City Services Committee 9/15/92 - Fiscal Impact)
(Cont'd from 10/7/92)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
File 197-92-5 . [Cultural Affairs Task Force Implementation Committee] Ordinance
constituting the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the task
force's implementation committee, with the addition of the Chief Administrative
Officer or his representative, for the purpose of developing a legislative proposal for
the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund Program and for the purpose of
developing proposals to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs
Task Force final report. (Supervisor Hallinan)
(Cont'd from 12/16/92)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole, as presented by Supervisor Hallinan, adopted.
Recommended as amended. New title: "Constituting the Cultural
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the task force's
implementation committee, provided that the Chief Administrative
Officer or his representative and the Director of Cultural Affairs or her
representative shall serve ex officio without vote, for the purpose of
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity
Endowment Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to
implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force
final report." (Add Supervisor Gonzalez as co-sponsor.) (To Board as a
Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 1993.)
File 127-92-11 . [Hotel Tax] Ordinance amending the San Francisco Municipal Code,
Part III, Section 515 to create a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the
percentage of the Hotel Tax allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks
Hall, Civic Auditorium, Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and
Advertising Fund, and Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of
the General Fund, and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax funds are no longer
necessary for Candlestick Park as set forth herein, a portion of such funds be
allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain publicity and advertising
purposes. (Supervisor Hallinan)
(Cont'd from 12/16/92)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title (as presented by Supervisor
Hallinan) adopted Amended on page 1, line 10, by deleting "certain".
Further amended on page 1, at the end of line 11, by adding "for the
arts". Recommended as amended. New title: "Amending the San
Francisco Municipal Code, Part ID, Section 515 to create a Cultural
Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic
Auditorium, Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and
Advertising Fund, and Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a
percentage of the General Fund, and to provide that at such time as
Hotel Tax funds are no longer necessary for Candlestick Park as set forth
herein, a portion of such funds be allocated to the Chief Administrative
Officer for publicity and advertising purposes for the arts." (Add
Supervisor Gonzalez as co-sponsor.) (To Board as a Committee Report
for consideration on January 4, 1993.)
6. File 127-92-10 . [Fictitious Business Name Filing Requirement] Ordinance
amending Part in, Municipal Code, by adding Section 75.1 to require persons filing a
statement of fictitious business name pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof of compliance, including payment of all
appropriate license fees, with all applicable sections of Article 2 of Part III of the
Municipal Code. (Supervisor Kennedy)
(Cont'd from 12/9/92)
ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting.
7. File 101-92-23 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $1,400,000, San
Francisco General Hospital, for capital improvement project (Ward 14 and 15
renovation). (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $1,400,000, San Francisco General Hospital, for capital
improvement project (Ward 14 and 15 renovation); placing $1,140,000 on
reserve."
8. File 101-92-24 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $379,000, San
Francisco General Hospital, for capital improvement project (AIDS ward
renovation). (Supervisor Gonzalez)
ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title:
"Appropriating $379,000, San Francisco General Hospital, for capital
improvement project (AIDS ward renovation); placing $292,435 on
reserve." (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on January
4, 1993.)
9. File 101-92-28 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $10,128,907,
Department of Public Health, General Fund, medical revenues (SB 855), transfer to
other funds, San Francisco General Hospital, other current services (SB 855). RO
#92124 (Controller)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
10. File 65-92-11 . [Lease of Property] Ordinance authorizing and approving lease of
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (southeast Community Facility,
northwest corner of Phelps Street and Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco
Community College District. (Real Estate Department)
(Cont'd from 11/4/92)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
11. File 62-92-3 . [Coit Tower Facility Lease] Ordinance approving a five-year lease
with Frederick Lo for management and operation of the Coit Tower Facility in San
Francisco, California. (Recreation and Park Department)
ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting.
12. File 62-92-4 . [Airport - Concession Lease] Ordinance approving "Boarding Area "E"
Principal Concession Retail Lease" between the Delstar Group and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airports Commission. (Airports
Commission)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
13. File 65-92-20 . [Termination of Lease Agreement] Ordinance approving termination
of lease agreement between Continental Grain Company and the City and County of
San Francisco, operating by and through the San Francisco Port Commission for use
of the space at Pier 90 Grain Terminal. (Port)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
14. File 97-92-70 . [Public Health Contracts] Ordinance amending Administrative Code
by adding Section 19A.32 to permit the Department of Public Health to enter into
indemnification agreements with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
enabling the Department of Public Health to participate in the Homeless Outreach
study at Transbay Transit Terminal. (Department of Public Health)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
15. File 101-92-21 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $524,636,
Department of Social Services, for permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe
benefits and day care assistance. RO #92100 (Controller)
ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting.
16. File 101-92-22 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $206,729, Public
Administrator, for various purposes, for the creation of four positions; companion
measure to File 102-92-4. RO #92029 (Controller)
ACTION: Amendment of the Whole (as presented by the Controller) adopted.
Recommended as amended. New title: "Appropriating $131,240, Public
Administrator, for various purposes, for the creation of four positions."
(To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 1993.)
17. File 102-92-4 . [Public Employment] Ordinance Amending Annual Salary Ordinance,
1992-93, Office of the Public Administrator/Guardian, reflecting the addition of
four positions (Classifications 1446 Secretary II (1) 4230 Estate Investigator (2) and
4231 Senior Estate Investigator (1). (Civil Service Commission)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
18. File 101-92-25 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $60,265, Rent
Board, for permanent salaries; and rescinding $60,265 in permanent salaries
appropriations; companion measure to File 102-92-10. RO #92127 (Controller)
ACTION: Amended on lines 4, 13, 14 and 15 by replacing "$60,265" with "$23,460".
Recommended as amended. New title: "Appropriating $23,460, Rent
Board, for permanent salaries; and rescinding $23,460 in permanent
salaries appropriations."
19. File 102-92-10 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance,
1992-93, Rent Arbitration Board, reflecting the addition of one position
(Classification AA44 N Senior Hearing Officer). (Civil Service Commission)
ACTION: Recommended.
20. File 97-92-4 . [Sale of Health Materials] Ordinance amending the San Francisco
Administrative Code by adding Section 8.35 to authorize the Director of Public
Health to sell health-related materials and establishing a fund for revenues derived
from such sales. (Supervisor Alioto)
(Transferred from City Services Committee 12/15/92 - Fiscal Impact)
ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting.
21 File 172-92-20 . [Indemnification Agreement] Resolution authorizing an indemnity
provision in the agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and the
County of San Mateo. (Public Utilities Commission)
ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on
January 4, 1993.)
CITY AND COUNTY
City 1\eport
OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642
December 28, 1992
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: December 30, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting
Item la - File 28-92-13
Item:
Amount:
Resolution approving a declaration of emergency and
emergency repairs for the power distribution system, Plot 7
and vicinity, San Francisco International Airport.
$220,000
Source of Funds: Airport Utilities Maintenance Fund
Description: The Airport reports that On October 22, 1992 a failure
occurred in the electrical power distribution system which
supplies electricity to four hangar buildings located at the
Airport's Plot 7. The failure of the power distribution system
caused a power outage to the four hangar buildings, which
are occupied by Butler Aviation, American Airlines, and
Quantas Airlines. On December 1, 1992 the Airports
Commission declared an emergency concerning the failure
of this power distribution system.
In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code,
the Airport initiated an expedited contracting procedure to
repair the power distribution system. The Airport selected
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
the firm of Cresci Electric, a WBE firm certified by the
Human Rights Commission, to repair the power distribution
system (see Comment No. 2 below).
The proposed resolution would approve the Airport's
declaration of emergency and the emergency repairs for the
power distribution system, at an estimated cost of $220,000.
Comments: 1. On October 23, 1992, the Airport estimated that the repairs
to the power distribution system would cost $150,000. Mr.
Angel Camerino, an Electrical Engineer for the Airport,
reports that, after further inspection of the damage to the
power distribution system, the cost estimate was increased to
$220,000. However, Mr. Camerino reports that the actual cost
of the completed repairs was $161,650.24. Therefore, the
proposed resolution should be amended to reflect that the
actual cost of repairs was $161,650.24, rather than the
estimated $220,000.
2. Mr. Camerino states that the power distribution system
which failed consists of electrical transmission cables which
are situated in underground pipes, and switching equipment
and transformers which control the supply of electricity to
individual buildings. Mr. Camerino states that the
equipment which failed was more than 45 years old and had
exceeded its useful life. Mr. Camerino states that the
equipment had been targeted for replacement by the Airport,
but he was not aware of the specific date when it would have
been repaired through normal maintenance operations.
The unanticipated conditions which resulted in an increase
in the estimated repair cost from $150,000 to $220,000 included
the collapse of an underground pipe carrying electrical cable,
which required that the cable be re-routed, instead of only
being replaced in its existing location.
3. Mr. Camerino states that the Airport consulted the
Human Rights Commission's listing of MBE/WBE firms and
interviewed the firm of Cresci Electric, a WBE firm, before
selecting this firm to perform the services. Cresci Electric
had previously performed services for the Airport, according
to Mr. Camerino.
4. Mr. Camerino states that electricity was restored to three
of the four hangar buildings which lost power within three to
four days, and that all repairs were completed on
approximately October 31, 1992, ten days after the failure
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
occurred. While the repairs were being made, the Airport
supplied electricity to the hangar buildings using standby
electrical generators.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the title and body of the proposed resolution, at line
4 and line 19, by substituting "$161,650.24" for "$220,000."
2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IJUDGKT ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item lb - File 147-92-7
Department:
Item:
Grant Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project
Description:
Budget
San Francisco Public Library
Resolution authorizing the Public Library to apply for, accept
and expend Federal funds for Major Urban Resource
Libraries for fiscal year 1992-93.
$65,528
October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993
Title I of the Library Services and Construction Act (LCSA),
administered through the State Library
Major Urban Resource Libraries (MURL)
The San Francisco Public Library was designated as a Major
Urban Resource Library (MURL) in 1984 and has received
MURL Federal grant funds since that time. In compliance
with the guidelines of the MURL grant program, the Public
Library chose to specialize in the areas of business and
science, since these materials go out of date quickly and
continue to increase in cost, and has designed a Regional
Area Collection Development Plan to address the information
needs of both children and adults interested in these
particular fields.
The San Francisco Public Library would use the Federal
grant funds to expand its collection of books in the fields of
business, science and technology. In addition, the proposed
grant funds would be used to purchase books in Asian
languages, Russian and Spanish to meet the needs of the
growing immigrant populations in the Bay Area.
Main Library '
Business/Science Department of the Main Library
Includes Regional business directories,
trade catalogs, business services
General Circulating Library of the Main Library
Includes Vietnamese, Chinese, and Spanish
language
Children's Services
Vietnamese
Japanese
Spanish
Chinese
$28,500
8,120
2,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Branch Libraries
Chinatown Branch - Chinese language
Mission Branch - Spanish language
Richmond Branch - Russian language
Western Addition Branch - Japanese language
$9,908
6,000
2,500
Z5QQ.
$65,528
Total Proposed Grant Funds
Required Match: None.
Indirect Costs: None.
Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on
October 1, 1992. Ms. Nancy Musser of the Public Library
reports that these proposed funds have been applied for,
accepted and expended during November, 1992, but due to a
departmental oversight, the Public Library has not previously
requested the Board of Supervisors authorization to apply for.
accept and expend the proposed grant funds. Therefore, the
proposed resolution should be amended to authorize the
Public Library to apply for, accept and expend the proposed
grant funds retroactively.
2. The State does not allow the proposed grant funds to be
used for indirect costs. Therefore, the title of the proposed
resolution should be amended to indicate that indirect costs
are waived for the proposed grant funds.
3. According to Ms. Musser, any cataloguing costs which
would be incurred as a result of purchasing books with the
proposed grant funds would be absorbed within the Public
Library's existing budget.
4. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file.
5. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request form.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public
Library to apply for, accept and expend the proposed grant
funds retroactively.
2. Amend the proposed resolution to indicate that indirect
costs are waived for the proposed grant funds.
3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
File Number
Grant Application Information Form
A document required to accompany a proposed resolution
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant
To: The Board of Supervisors
Attn: Clerk of the Board
The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying
resolution :
Department: Library
Contact Person: Nancy Musser Telephone: 557-4330
Project Title: MURL (Major Urban Resource Libraries)
Grant Source: LSCA Funds awarded through the State Library (Library Servic es and
Construction Act)
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary:
The library applies for and receives MURL funds annually. They are used
entirely for the purchase of library materials:
Books in the fields of business, science, and technology, materials that go
out of date quickly and continue to increase in cost.
Books in Asian languages, Russian and Spanish to meet the needs of the
Bay Area's growing immigrant populations.
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $65,528
Maximum Funding Amount Available: $65,528
Required Matching Funds: nnnp
Number of Positions Created and Funded:
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services:
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? n a
Grant Application Information Form
Page 2
Term of Grant: October 1. 199? - Sppt-. 30 , 1933
Date Department Notified of Available funds:
Application Due Date:
iiUflg 1 , , 199?
July 31 , 199?
Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or
appropriations legislation):
The MURL funds are to be used for the development of collections of
regional as well as local value.
The funds are paid to the library in a lump sum in the fall to be
expended-according to the plan submitted- by October 30 of the following year.
7
Department Head Approval
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item lc - File 147-92-8
Department Public Library
Item: Resolution authorizing the City Librarian to apply for a
donation of equipment valued at $405,416.85 available from
the Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital Equipment
Corporation for creating the AIDS Library /Information
Network; waiving indirect costs.
Project AIDS Library Information Network
Description: The proposed resolution would authorize the Public Library
to apply for a donation of equipment, valued at $405,416.85,
donated by the Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital
Equipment Corporation. The equipment would likely be
donated by June, 1993.
The proposed equipment donation would be used in the new
Main Library and branch libraries to create an AIDS/HrV
information database that will include AIDS/HTV service
provider profiles. Specifically the proposed equipment
donation would be used as follows:
• establishment of a centrally maintained information and
referral database;
• coordination of efforts by numerous AIDS service agencies;
• replacement of multiple paper-based information and
referral systems;
• reduction in duplicated efforts by AIDS service agencies;
• expanded points of access for important AIDS information
and referral systems;
• expanded points of access for important AIDS information
and referrals;
• improvement in the quality and uniformity of vital
information. J
As the AIDS epidemic has grown, funding has not kept pace
with a widening need for information. The proposed
equipment would be used to assist AIDS service agencies in
meeting a growing demand in spite of often diminishing
resources by vastly improving efficiency and establishing
alternative sources for this information.
Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) would provide
computer hardware and software to establish the AIDS/HIV
information database, with a total value of $405,416.85. DEC
would contribute 75 percent of the cost of the equipment, or
$304,062.64, and the City and several AIDS/HIV related non-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Budget:
Required Match:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
profit agencies would provide 25 percent of the cost of the
equipment as matching funds to DEC, or $101,354.21 for the
equipment donation.
Although the equipment donation would be made to the City,
non-profit agencies which work in the areas of AIDS/HIV
would also receive a portion of the total equipment donations.
A breakdown of the equipment allocation is as follows:
Equipment
A gency Value
San Francisco Public Library $34,544.00
San Francisco AIDS Foundation 140,339.00
AIDS Service Providers Association 45,183.00
Life Center 45,183.00
Other Agencies 48.200.00
Total Equipment Purchases $313,449.00
Installation and Warranties 91.967.85
Total Equipment $405,416.85
25 percent of the total estimated costs of $405,416.85, which
would result in a total required match of $101,354.21 for the
City and the non-profit agencies. The City's portion of the
required match would be $11,148.96 (See Comment #2). The
City's required match of $11,148.96 consists of the City's pro-
rated share of the equipment ($8,619.84) and the installation
and warranties ($2,529.12).
None. The Public Library is requesting that indirect costs be
waived for the proposed grant funds.
1. The Public Library has an existing master agreement
with DEC for the implementation of an automated card
catalog system for the new Main Library and its branches.
Under this master agreement, the City receives an estimated
21 percent discount on equipment. The total value of
$405,416.85 of the equipment which would be donated to the
City, and which includes $101,354.21 in 25 percent matching
funds from the City and non-profit agencies, already includes
this discount.
2. As noted above, the proposed grant requires that the City
and the non-profit agencies to provide a 25 percent match of
the costs, and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) would
pay for 75 percent of the equipment costs, including
installation and warranties. The total required match for
the City would be $11,148.96. The remaining $90,205.25 of the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
total required matching funds of $101,354.21 would be funded
by the non-profit agencies.
3. The source of funds for the City's portion of the matching
funds has not yet been identified. According to Mr. Ed
McBride of the Public Library, the City is currently
requesting DEC to waive this required match. If DEC does
not waive this required match, Mr. McBride reports that the
Library Foundation of San Francisco has indicated that the
required match may be funded through private donations.
However, the Public Library has not yet received any written
assurance from either DEC or from the Library Foundation
regarding whether this required match would be waived, or
whether it could be funded through private donations.
4. The proposed equipment donation includes a three year
warranty, beginning in FY 1992-93 and ending in FY 1994-95.
The projected annual maintenance costs, which would begin
in FY 95-96, for the City and the non-profit agencies are as
follows:
Projected
Annual
Maintenance
Costs
Agency
SF Public Library
$1,950
SF AIDS Foundation
5,520
AIDS Providers Assn.
4,440
Life Center
4,440
Other Agencies
252
Total $16,602
These estimated annual maintenance costs beginning in FY
1995-96 would continue in subsequent fiscal years.
5. Under the proposed donation, although the equipment
donated would be used by the City and several non-profit
agencies, the equipment would be donated to the City, and the
City would be liable if the non-profit agencies default on
either providing the required matching funds or providing
funds for maintenance beginning in FY 95-96. Therefore, the
City could incur additional General Fund costs of $101,354.21,
for one-time costs for the total required match, and $16,602.00
which could be incurred on an annual basis for maintenance
costs beginning in FY 95-96.
BOARD OF SI TPKKVISOKS
BUDGET ANALYST
10
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Recommendation:
6. According to Mr. McBride, if the other agencies default on
providing the required matching fluids, the Public Library
would not accept the equipment for the non-profit agencies,
and therefore only maintenance costs may subsequently be
incurred for those non-profit agencies which have already
provided the required matching funds.
7. The proposed new computer equipment is considered to be
a complete package to establish the AIDS/HIV Library
Information Network. However, to the extent that any of the
non-profit agencies that the Public Library expects will
provide matching funds for components of the system (as
detailed in the project budget above), fail to provide matching
funds, the AIDS/HrV Library Information Network would be
incomplete and the overall efficiency of the system could be
impaired.
8. The Disability Access checklist is in the Board File
9. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request Form.
10. Given that the source of funds for the required matching
funds have not yet been identified, and given that the City
would incur additional maintenance costs funded through
the General Fund beginning in FY 1995-96, and also could
incur additional General Fund costs in the event that the
non-profit agencies default, approval of the proposed
resolution is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
11. The Public Library is requesting that the proposed
resolution be continued to the Finance Committee meeting of
January 6, 1993.
Continue the proposed resolution to the Finance Committee
meeting of January 6, 1993, as requested by the Public
Library. /
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
.flf/noer
%&
Grant Application Information Form
s
A document required to accompany a proposed resolution
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant
To: The Board of Supervisors
Attn: Clerk of the Board
The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying
resolution:
Department: San Francisco Public Library
Contact Person: George E. McBride
Telephone: 55 7 ~4 2 1 5
Project Title: AIDS Library Information Network
Grant Source: Digital Equipment Corporation
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary
This grant will provide computer equipment in the Library
that will allow networking between three other information
providers. This network will provide a database of AIDS/HIV
service providers for persons with HIV/AIDS.
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $405 , A 16.00
Maximum Funding Amount Available: $5.0 mill ion
Required Matching Funds:
Number of Positions Created and Funded: N / A
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: _ $1,950 year 4 and 5
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid?
12
ilication Into^uion Form
Term of Grant: One time gift of equipment
Date Department Notified of Available funds: March 1992
Application Due Date: No date specified
Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or
appropriations legislation):
See attached announcement
y ^M r^R
Department Head Approval
13
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item Id - File 101-90-121 .3
Department: Water Department
Item:
Amount:
Release of reserved funds for the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3
Relining Project.
$10.5 million
Source of Funds: Water Department 1991 Series A Revenue Bonds
Description: On June 26, 1991 the Board of Supervisors approved a
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-90-121) to
appropriate $47,925,000 of Water Department 1991 Series A
Revenue Bonds for the following projects:
San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining $15,000,000
Calaveras Pipeline 11,300,000
Three-Year Main Replacement 19,125,000
Three-Year Service Renewals 2.500.000
Total $47,925,000
Of the $15 million that was appropriated for the San Andreas
Pipeline No. 3 Relining, $10.5 million was reserved pending
selection of the construction contractors and identification of
their MBE/WBE status and cost details.
The San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 relining project consists of
installing a new 60 inch diameter steel liner pipe inside the
existing 66 inch diameter pipe for approximately three miles
between the San Andreas Water Treatment Plant and the
Baden Pump Station in South San Francisco. The existing
pipe has broken in places and the Water Department believes
that the whole pipe should be rehabilitated due to its age. The
space between the old pipe and the new liner pipe would be
filled with concrete.
Six bids were received for the project to reline the
approximately three mile section of the pipeline between the
San Andreas Water Treatment Plant and the Baden Pump
Station on October 27, 1992. The bids ranged from a high bid
of $7,472,352 to a low bid of $5,448,000 from the joint venture of
A. Ruiz Construction Co. and Associates (an MBE firm) and
Ranger Pipeline Inc. The Water Department's estimated
budget for the project is as follows:
Construction
Contingency (approx. 10 %)
Total
$5,448,000
552.000
$6,000,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Comment:
The Water Department is requesting that $6.0 million be
released for the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining project
at this time instead of the full $10.5 million that was reserved.
The requested $6.0 million would provide construction
funding to rehabilitate the approximately three mile section
of the pipeline between the San Andreas Water Treatment
Plant and the Baden Pump Station.
According to the Water Department, construction is expected
to begin on February 1, 1993 and be completed by November
27, 1993.
The Water Department is also requesting that an additional
$500,000 be released in order to perform testing of the San
Andreas Pipeline No. 3 north of the Baden Pump Station. The
Water Department explains that rehabilitation of the section
of the pipeline north of the Baden Pump Station is part of the
San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining project but is not the
subject of the proposed relining construction. According to
the Water Department, testing of the section of the pipeline
north of the Baden Pump Station will eventually have to be
tested before any relining construction occurs. However, the
Water Department has not selected a contractor specifically
to perform the testing. Therefore the Budget Analyst
recommends that the additional $500,000 requested for testing
the pipeline north of the Baden Pump Station not be released
until a contractor is selected and cost and MBE/WBE details
are determined.
Recommendation:
Release reserved funds in the amount of $6.0 million for
construction and contingency to rehabilitate approximately
three miles of the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3. Continue to
reserve $4.5 million ($10.5 million originally reserved less
$6.0 million recommended' release of reserve) including
$500,000 for testing the pipeline north of the Baden Pump
Station pending selection of contractors and determination of
cost and MBE/WBE details.
BOARD OF S UPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 2 - File 69-92-1
1. This item is a motion directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to
submit to the Mayor a request for a supplemental appropriation of $30,802 to the
Board of Supervisors for services of the Budget Analyst, using funds which have
accumulated in the Cable Television Access and Development Fund.
2. During the budget deliberations of February, 1992 the FY 1992-93 budget
for the Board of Supervisors was reduced by $40,525 from the FY 1991-92 level for
the services of the Budget Analyst. This $40,525 funding reduction results in a 665
hour reduction in services provided by the Budget Analyst. In October, 1992 the
appropriation for the Budget Analyst was reduced for the second time by $30,802 or
the equivalent of an additional reduction of 465 hours of Budget Analyst services.
The total of these two reductions for FY 1992-93 is $71,327 representing 1,130 hours
of Budget Analyst services.
3. The proposed motion would request the Mayor to submit a supplemental
appropriation to the Board of Supervisors that would appropriate $30,802, from the
unappropriated revenues in the Cable Television Access and Development Fund, a
special fund, to the Board of Supervisors budget, in order to restore the second
reduction to the budget for contractual services of the Budget Analyst. The use of
fees and special fund revenues for the services of the Budget Analyst is consistent
with similar actions approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. If this
reduction is restored, the Budget Analyst's contract will be reduced by $40,525
instead of $71,327.
4. The Cable Television Access and Development Fund currently has an
available balance of $99,494. The proposed transfer of $30,802 from the Cable
Television Access and Development Fund would leave an unappropriated balance of
$68,692 in this special fund.
5. The transfer of $30,802 from the Cable Television Access and Development
Fund to the Budget Analyst's contract was not made during the September, 1992
Finance Committee budget hearings regarding revisions to the FY 1992-93 budget.
Therefore, the proposed request to make such a transfer of funds is being submitted
at this time.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 3 - File 97-92-40
Note: This item was continued at the October 7, 1992 Finance
Committee meeting.
Item: Ordinance amending the City's Administrative Code by adding
Section 5. 108 .A to establish a County Veteran Service Officer
within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.
Description: State law authorizes the Board of Supervisors of each County
to designate a County Veteran Service Officer (CVSO) and to
provide the CVSO with appropriate staffing and other
resources, in order to assist veterans to obtain State and
Federal veteran's benefits. Although 55 of California's 58
Counties have such an Office, San Francisco does not.
The proposed ordinance would establish a County Veteran
Service Officer within the Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO) in order to administer aid to indigent veterans
and to investigate claims for benefits under State or Federal
law. The effort to establish such an office has resulted from the
planned relocation of State and Federal Veterans Affairs
offices from San Francisco to Oakland in March, 1993, which
will diminish veterans' access to veterans service
organizations.
On September 15, 1992, the City Services Committee
recommended approval of the proposed ordinance, but
recommended that the Finance Committee consider the impact
of increased veterans benefits on General Fund expenditures
for social services, as well as potential sources of funding, other
than the General Fund, for the proposed CVSO.
The CAO has proposed to incorporate the CVSO with the
Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian, which
currently provides services to some veterans. The County
Veteran Service Officer is required by California law to be a
veteran. The current Public Administrator/Public Guardian is
a veteran.
Under the CAO's proposal, the annual CVSO budget would be
$409,200. This amount would be partially offset by a State
subvention estimated at $40,000 based on operating the new
program for eight months in FY 1992-93 from November 1,
1992 through June 30, 1992 and also includes $115,238 in
salary and fringe benefits for existing staff in the office of the
Public Administrator/ Public Guardian. The CAO estimates
that total new costs to the City annually for the CVSO after
deducting the $115,238 costs for existing staff would be
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Budget:
EEE
Amount
.25
$20,795
1.00
45,623
2.00
82,892
1.50
62,169
.25
9,226
100
36.566
6.00
$257,271
$293,962. The Budget Analyst estimates total expenditures for
the eight month period from November 1, 1992 through June
30, 1992 at $195,975. If the estimated State subvention of
$40,000 is received, net General Fund expenditures over the
eight months are estimated at $155,975.
Personnel
1126 Public Administrator
4231 Sr. Estate Investigator
4230 Estate Investigator
2905 Sr. Eligibility Worker
1650 Accountant
1446 Secretary II
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits (@ 25 percent)
Subtotal
Operating Costs
EDP Services
Travel
Miscellaneous Services
Telepbone
Materials and Supplies
Rent (2,000 sq. ft.)
Real Estate Dept.
Central Shop-Maintenance
Central Shop-Fuel
Reproduction
Subtotal
Start. Un Costs
EDP Services
Equipment Purchase
Automobile Purchase
Subtotal
64.318
$16,800
12,000
5,157
4,760
1,990
24,000
1,000
1,054
500
350
$4,000
6,000
10-000
Total $409,200
Less Existing Public Administrator/Public Guardian Staff
Net New First Year General Fund Contribution Required
$321,589
67,611
20000
(115.238)
$293.962
General Fund Contribution over 8 Months of FY 1992-93
(66.6 percent of First Year Cost)
Less Estimated State Subvention
Net Estimated General Fund Contribution, FY 1992-93
$195,975
(40.000)
$155,975
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Comments: 1. Of the proposed $409,200 budget for the County Veterans
Service Office, $115,238 would consist of existing personnel
costs in the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian
(PA/PG). According to Mr. Ricardo Hernandez, the Public
Administrator/Public Guardian, certain PA/PG positions,
equivalent to 2.0 FTE, would be transferred to the CVSO
budget because these employees currently perform services on
behalf of veterans, including estate management and
conservatorships. These activities would be incorporated into
the functions of the CVSO. The classifications to be transferred
would be the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (.25 FTE),
Senior Eligibility Workers (1.5 FTE), and an Accountant (.25
FTE).
Mr. Hernandez states that salary and fringe benefit costs for
these employees are now paid from the General Fund. Since
the proposed $409,200 CVSO budget includes $115,238 for
existing positions which are already funded, the amount of new
funding needed to establish the CVSO for the first year is
$293,962.
2. If the CVSO is established on November 1, 1992, the
General Fund contribution in Fiscal Year 1992-93 would be
$195,975.
3. The proposed budget includes a $40,000 estimated
subvention from the California Department of Veterans
Affairs. Mr. Gerald Rucker of the California Department of
Veterans Affairs reports that his office has estimated that
$40,000 in State funds would be allocated to San Francisco in
1992-93, based on the inception of services in November 1992.
Mr. Rucker reports that State subvention funds include $2,500
to offset the salary of the County Veterans Service Officer and
$5,000 for administrative costs. Thus, a minimum of $7,500
would be reimbursed by the State. The State also allocates
subvention funds on the basis of claim forms filed and awards
granted by the Federal Veterans Administration. Each claim
form and each award generated by a CVSO counts as a single
performance credit for the CVSO. Mr. Rucker has estimated
that in addition to the $7,500, the proposed San Francisco
CVSO would receive $32,500 for approximately 2,400 claim
forms and awards during fiscal year 1992-93, resulting in a
total estimated subvention of $40,000 in 1992-93.
Performance-based State subventions are not awarded at an
established rate. Rather, the State calculates the total number
of claims filed each year State-wide and allocates available
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HUDGET ANALYST
19
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
funds in proportion to a County's share of the total. The
Budget Analyst notes that it is doubtful that by increasing the
number of claims filed, a CVSO can significantly increase its
share of the State subvention, because the increase in local
claims would be a very small percentage of all claims State-
wide.
Mr. Rucker indicates that legislation is currently pending
before the State Legislature which would authorize additional
funds for this program through the sale of customized vehicle
license plates. Mr. Rucker reports that the State Department
of Finance has estimated that this legislation would increase
State allocations to CVSOs by approximately 12 percent,
beginning in 1994-95. The Budget Analyst notes that a 12
percent increase in San Francisco's estimated 1992-93 State
subvention of $40,000 would result in a total State subvention
of $44,800.
4. The California Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA)
estimates that 76,490 veterans were residents of San Francisco
in March, 1991, and that 8,498, or approximately 11 percent of
these veterans were receiving veterans benefits. According to
CDVA, the average monthly payment to benefit recipients in
Northern California in 1990 was $449, compared to an average
monthly payment of $339 to veterans residing in San
Francisco. CDVA estimates that if average monthly benefit
levels for San Francisco's veterans were to increase by $110 to
$449, equal to the Northern California average monthly
payment, through the efforts of a CVSO, then San Francisco
veterans would realize additional annual income of
approximately $11.2 million. However, there is no firm
documentation that this increase would be achieved. The
Budget Analyst notes that if this estimate is accurate, the City
could realize higher tax revenues if veterans expend higher
levels of income within the City.
5. The CDVA reports that establishing a San Francisco CVSO
could result in reductions in General Assistance payments to
veterans who qualify for veterans benefits. However, there is
no firm documentation that such reductions would be achieved.
According to Ms. Dorothy Enisman of the San Francisco
Department of Social Services (DSS), General Assistance
eligibility workers do not currently apply to the U.S. Veterans
Administration (USVA) for benefits on behalf of veterans who
apply for General Assistance. DSS does request information
from the USVA concerning whether the applicant is currently
receiving veterans benefits. Ms. Enisman estimates that in
99.9 percent of cases, such an inquiry to the USVA on behalf of
BOARD OF STTPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
an identified veteran reveals that the veteran is not receiving
veterans benefits.
According to Mr. Hernandez, Social Service Departments in
other California Counties ordinarily refer General Assistance
applicants who are veterans to the CVSO to evaluate their
eligibility for veterans benefits. Mr. Rucker states that a
standard form issued by the California Department of Social
Services is available for this purpose, and that State
subvention funds to County CVSO's are based in part on
MediCal cost avoidance activities. Mr. Hernandez states that
he would organize a similar referral process between the CVSO
and the Department of Social Services (DSS) in San Francisco,
if the CVSO is created.
6. The Budget Analyst has contacted representatives of Swords
to Plowshares, Disabled American Veterans, and the Monterey
and Sacramento County Veterans Service Officers in an effort
to understand veterans' eligibility for benefits. The following
explanation of veterans benefits is based on these discussions.
The monetary benefits which are available to qualified
veterans, and which could potentially offset County General
Assistance expenditures for veterans, include Disability
Compensation and Pensions.
Disability Compensation requires a showing that the veteran
has been partially or totally disabled as a result of military
service. Benefits for such service-connected disabilities are
paid in proportion to the extent of the disability (from 10 to 100
percent, as determined according to VA guidelines). The
amount of the benefit ranges from $83 per month for a 10
percent disability to $1,680 per month for full disability.
Disability Compensation would reduce a veteran's eligibility
for General Assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis. At a
disability rating of 40 percent, the disability compensation of
$342 per month would essentially eliminate the maximum
General Assistance award of $345 per month. However, to
qualify under this program, it must be shown that the
veteran's disability resulted directly from his or her military
service. In addition, the disability cannot be the result of
"willful misconduct." The USVA regards alcohol or drug use
which results in disability to be "willful misconduct," although
such use can also be regarded as symptomatic of certain
recognized disorders, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Veterans' advocates report that claims for service-connected
disabilities must be carefully analyzed, prepared, and
documented in order to be successful.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Pensions are provided to veterans who are permanently and
totally disabled for any reason, have limited income, and have
at least 90 days of military service, including at least one day
during a period of war. Pensions provide a subsistence level of
income, currently equal to $7,397 annually for a veteran with
no dependents, but pensions are reduced if the veteran has
other sources of income or significant assets. Although a
pension is available regardless of the reason for the disability,
the disability must be total. Persons with total disabilities
may already be less likely to receive General Assistance, since
they are often eligible for Federal Supplemental Security
Income.
7. DSS does not maintain statistics concerning the number of
General Assistance recipients who are veterans. However, a
recent DSS survey indicates that 28 percent of GA applicants
in 1989 were age 41-60 (persons who were of military age
during the Vietnam conflict), while another 34.5 percent were
age 31-40 (including some who were of military age during
Vietnam). Among GA recipients who received benefits for
more than one year, approximately 6.5 percent had a
psychological disorder and approximately 54 percent had
significant health problems or disabilities which prevented
them from working.
Since Ms. Enisman reports that almost every veteran who
applies for General Assistance is found not to be receiving any
veterans benefits, and DSS does not apply for such benefits,
the Budget Analyst believes that a reasonable potential does
exist to offset General Assistance payments for veterans by
seeking disability compensation and pensions. However, the
amount of savings which could be realized, if at all, cannot be
quantified since statistics are not available concerning the
veteran status of GA recipients.
8. Veterans who have at least a 20 percent service-connected
disability, or who receive a VA pension due to full disability
regardless of cause, are eligible for health care benefits
through Veterans Administration facilities. The Budget
Analyst notes that such health care benefits could offset the
cost of health care provided through County facilities, although
the fiscal effects of any such benefit cannot be established at
this time. Veterans with these disabilities are also eligible to
receive vocational rehabilitation through the Veterans
Administration.
9. Certain types of veterans benefits are available to spouses
and dependents of veterans. These benefits include a non-
BOARD OF STTPERVTSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
22
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
service connected death benefit, subject to income guidelines,
for survivors of war-time veterans.
Mr. Hernandez states that a particular need exists in San
Francisco for assistance to Asian-American veterans and their
spouses, widows, or children, particularly those who are
Vietnamese or Filipino. Mr. Hernandez states that Federal
legislation was enacted earlier this year which recognized the
U.S. citizenship claims of veterans who served in the
Philippine Scouts, and who may now be eligible for veterans
benefits for the first time. Mr. Hernandez also reports that the
homeless population is thought to consist of large numbers of
veterans, who could receive assistance in obtaining benefits
through a CVSO.
10. According to Ms. Kym Valdez, Human Services Program
Director for Swords to Plowshares, a non-profit veterans
services agency, applications for veterans benefits are
extremely complex and the benefits are often difficult to obtain.
Ms. Valdez states that the U.S. Veterans Administration,
through its regional offices, usually does not assist veterans in
filing claims, but expects claims to be complete and fully
documented before they will be considered. Mr. Hernandez
states that the State of California established the State
network of CVSO offices in response to the lack of Federal
outreach to veterans and the difficulty veterans faced in
obtaining benefits.
All of the veterans benefit counselors who were contacted for
this report have emphasized that success in obtaining veterans
benefits requires aggressive advocacy efforts and considerable
proficiency in benefit requirements.
11. Under State law, the County Veterans Services Officer is
required to be a veteran. Mr. Hernandez, who would serve as
the CVSO, is a veteran. According to the City Attorney's Office,
to combine the positions of PA/PG and CVSO at this time
would not require that all future candidates for the position of
Public Administrator/Public Guardian must also be veterans.
However, if a non-veteran PA/PG is appointed in the future,
according to the City Attorney's Office, the CVSO position
would have to be transferred elsewhere.
12. Items 16 and 17 of this report are an ordinance to amend
the Annual Salary Ordinance to create four new positions for
the proposed new program and a supplemental appropriation
ordinance to fund the new positions and startup and operating
costs of the new program. This proposed ordinance to amend
the Administrative Code to establish the new program should
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
23
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
be considered together with Items 16 and 17, Files 101-92-22
and 102-92-4 of this report.
13. The Budget Analyst considers this program to be a worthy
program, but cautions against all new expenditures given the
City's fiscal problems. As previously noted, the net additional
cost for this new program after deducting the costs of existing
employees is estimated at $293,962 annually. This $293,962
annual cost would be reduced by the State's subvention to the
City for operating the program. On an annual basis, for 1993-
94 Mr. Rucker estimates that the State subsidy would be
approximately $70,000. However, the amount of the State's
subventions for future years cannot be estimated at this time.
Based on a State subsidy of $70,000, the proposed new
program would require additional General Fund funding of
$223,962 ($293,962 less $70,000) annually in the future.
Therefore, approval of the proposed ordinance to establish a
new City program is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance to establish a new City
program that would create four new positions and would
require additional General Fund funding of $223,962 (based on
a $70,000 annual State subsidy) is a policy matter for the
Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
24
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Items 4 and 5 - File 197-92-5 and 127-92-11
Note: These items were continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of
December 16, 1992.
1. File 197-92-5 The proposed resolution would constitute the Cultural
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's Implementation
Committee, with the addition of the CAO or his representative, for the purpose of
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to implement other
recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force final report.
File 127-92-11 The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco
Municipal Code, Part III, Section 515 to create a special fund to be known as the
Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic Auditorium,
Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and Advertising Fund,
Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of the General Fund
and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax Funds are no longer necessary for
Candlestick Park as set forth under the proposed ordinance, a portion of such
funds would be allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for certain
publicity and advertising purposes.
2. On October 28, 1992 the Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. As a result of this hearing, the Finance
Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes in
the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues and to enpanel a committee to implement
the recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force. These two items would
1) effect changes in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues, and 2) constitute the
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's
Implementation Committee.
3. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for
the Arts (GFTA) program by certain members of the arts community. Mr.
Kreidler advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA
funds could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of
comparable size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist.
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be
allocated to African American arts organizations.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
25
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
4. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the
Arts. The proposed ordinance (File 127-92-11) would establish a special fund,
called the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, which would focus on the following
four priorities:
a. Cultural Equity Initiatives;
b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines;
c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and
d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative.
5. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would
be made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity
Endowment Fund would make purposeful investments for arts groups, Mr.
Kreidler reports. For example, a group might receive a sum of money to support
start-up costs, or to market their work for a limited time. Organizations that
receive Cultural Equity Endowment funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA
on-going grants in addition to the competitive grant received from the Cultural
Equity Endowment.
6. File 127-92-11 would amend the City's Municipal Code to allocate 1.25
percent of the total Hotel Tax Fund in FY 1993-94 and to allocate 1.75 percent in FY
1994-95 and 2.25 percent in FY 1995-96 to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund.
The attached table demonstrates the impact of the proposed allocation to the
current fund recipients of the Hotel Tax revenues. As noted in the attached table,
under the proposed legislation, in FY 1993-94 the Unallocated General Fund
would be reduced by $309,809 and Special Contingencies (publicity and advertising
for special parades, celebrations, street fairs and unforeseen special
contingencies) would be reduced by approximately $146,136. Each of the
remaining affected organizations would be reduced by $68,684. Thus, of the six
funds impacted by the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the General
Fund would be reduced by the greatest amount.
7. According to Ms. Thelma Shelly, Director of the War Memorial, the War
Memorial would have to raise rents in order to offset the proposed Hotel Tax
revenue decreases of approximately $68,684 in FY 1993-94, $108,024 in FY 1994-95
and $151,448 in FY 1995-96. Ms. Shelly advises that the War Memorial will be
incurring expenses in the future for capital improvements on the War Memorial
building that would have to be funded through increased rent fees if the War
Memorial's Hotel Tax revenues decrease.
8. As noted on the attached table, the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund is targeted to consist of 1.25 percent and 1.75 percent of Hotel Tax funds
during the first and second years, respectively, and 2.25 percent of Hotel Tax
funds thereafter. The Task Force's report assumes that the Cultural Equity
Endowment Fund would commence in 1993-94, and that Hotel Tax revenues
would increase by five percent annually. Based on these assumptions, and based
on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of $55,671,000 in 1992-93 generated
BOARD OF STIPKRyT ftORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Items 4 and 5 - File 1 97-92-5 and 127-92-1 1
Note: These items were continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of
December 16, 1992.
1. File 197-92-5 The proposed resolution would constitute the Cultural
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's Implementation
Committee, with the addition of the CAO or his representative, for the purpose of
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to implement other
recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force final report.
File 127-92-11 The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco
Municipal Code, Part III, Section 515 to create a special fund to be known as the
Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic Auditorium,
Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and Advertising Fund,
Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of the General Fund
and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax Funds are no longer necessary for
Candlestick Park as set forth under the proposed ordinance, a portion of such
funds would be allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for certain
publicity and advertising purposes.
2. On October 28, 1992 the Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. As a result of this hearing, the Finance
Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes in
the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues and to enpanel a committee to implement
the recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force. These two items would
1) effect changes in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues, and 2) constitute the
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's
Implementation Committee.
3. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for
the Arts (GFTA) program by certain members of the arts community. Mr.
Kreidler advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA
funds could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of
comparable size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist.
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be
allocated to African American arts organizations.
board of ggJEEBMSQBS
BUDGET ANALYST
25
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
4. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the
Arts. The proposed ordinance (File 127-92-11) would establish a special fund,
called the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, which would focus on the following
four priorities:
a. Cultural Equity Initiatives;
b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines;
c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and
d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative.
5. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would
be made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity
Endowment Fund would make purposeful investments for arts groups, Mr.
Kreidler reports. For example, a group might receive a sum of money to support
start-up costs, or to market their work for a limited time. Organizations that
receive Cultural Equity Endowment funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA
on-going grants in addition to the competitive grant received from the Cultural
Equity Endowment.
6. File 127-92-11 would amend the City's Municipal Code to allocate 1.25
percent of the total Hotel Tax Fund in FY 1993-94 and to allocate 1.75 percent in FY
1994-95 and 2.25 percent in FY 1995-96 to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund.
The attached table demonstrates the impact of the proposed allocation to the
current fund recipients of the Hotel Tax revenues. As noted in the attached table,
under the proposed legislation, in FY 1993-94 the Unallocated General Fund
would be reduced by $309,809 and Special Contingencies (publicity and advertising
for special parades, celebrations, street fairs and unforeseen special
contingencies) would be reduced by approximately $146,136. Each of the
remaining affected organizations would be reduced by $68,684. Thus, of the six
funds impacted by the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the General
Fund would be reduced by the greatest amount.
7. According to Ms. Thelma Shelly, Director of the War Memorial, the War
Memorial would have to raise rents in order to offset the proposed Hotel Tax
revenue decreases of approximately $68,684 in FY 1993-94, $108,024 in FY 1994-95
and $151,448 in FY 1995-96. Ms. Shelly advises that the War Memorial will be
incurring expenses in the future for capital improvements on the War Memorial
building that would have to be funded through increased rent fees if the War
Memorial's Hotel Tax revenues decrease.
8. As noted on the attached table, the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund is targeted to consist of 1.25 percent and 1.75 percent of Hotel Tax funds
during the first and second years, respectively, and 2.25 percent of Hotel Tax
funds thereafter. The Task Force's report assumes that the Cultural Equity
Endowment Fund would commence in 1993-94, and that Hotel Tax revenues
would increase by five percent annually. Based on these assumptions, and based
on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of $55,671,000 in 1992-93 generated
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
from the basic 8 percent Hotel Tax rate, the Budget Analyst estimates that the
total dollar amount of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would be as follows:
• $730,682 in FY 1993-94 (1.25 percent of the current estimated revenues
plus a five percent increase);
• $1,073,489 in FY 1994-95 (1.75 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94
revenues plus a five percent increase); and
• $1,450,038 in FY 1995-96 (2.25 percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment
would consist of this 2.25 percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar
amount of Hotel Tax revenues.
9. The Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not necessarily
increase by five percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by tourists, and
tourism generally declines during economic downturns and increases during
upturns. A five percent annual increase is higher than the current rate of
inflation. Thus, an assumption that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent
per year assumes that either the number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates
charged by such hotels will increase in future years, an assumption that may not
be realized depending on economic conditions. Historically, the 8 percent of the
total 11 percent Hotel Tax has generated the following actual revenues:
FY Amount Percent Increase
1987-88 $44,357,994 n/a
1988-89 48,810,018 10.0 %
1989-90 46,120,913 (5.5)
1990-91 50,588,835 9.7
1991-92 52,389,209 3.6
As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent
annual increase estimated by the Task Force. The average increase over the past
four years is 4.45 percent.
10. The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to the five
organizations which would receive a reduction in the percentage of the Hotel Tax
funds would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel Tax
revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Instead,
the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in future
increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax revenues
included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst concurs that
each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar amount of
their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the dollar
amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not increase over
time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would decrease
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
because of the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In other
words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if their
anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment
Fund, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure reductions
or increase other revenues.
11. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts
Commission, the Arts Commission or the Grants for the Arts were both
recommended as the agency to administer the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund.
According to Ms. Winship, the proposed Task Force's Implementation Committee
(File 197-92-5) would decide which agency would administer the proposed
Cultural Equity Endowment Program. Ms. Winship advises that because of the
nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the Endowment would
be expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned
a decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition,
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund
would be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates.
However, Ms. Marie Acosta Colon, Director of the Mexican Museum and member
of the Cultural Affairs Task Force, estimates that between five to twenty percent of
the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would be required to fund
administrative costs. Ms. Colon reports that the level of administrative costs
would depend on which agency would be responsible for administering the
proposed fund.
12. In addition to deciding which agency would be responsible for
administering the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Program, the proposed
Task Force's Implementation Committee (File 197-92-5) would develop proposals
to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force's final
report.
Recommendation
The proposed ordinance and resolution are policy matters for the Board of
Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment
a. vP
s*
CL «0
O 3
C *p
CO CO CO
•«r tt rr tt
TT ^ -^
o> •"! ~~_ ■"" °* *i <**_ ■* *P
o o oj ^ *- ^r co
*- CO — CO
CO CO
88
o" o
o> o> CO
a>
tt o •- o_ "<r co
SKN(NJ(VJWOJCO(D
»- o) oi to (o d (jj ib d
CM CM <M C\J
o o o o
o co o o> o
O OJ o ^-
co •** h- , ^-
S2 ^-_ ^ CW CO «J" CO * CM
ooocococoioco"
CMOJ'-WIOOJCOU)
° 9 9 ° o o o o -
OJOJCMOJCOIOCOIOO
CO i CO i CO CO OJ OJ [ CM ^- CD
■■— " O) C> (D «fl d (O N 6
■^-^r-^Trocoooo
co co co co co c
CD CD t£> CD *-_ a
co* co" a>" co" to" o
co to co co *<r c
co in
NNlO(O»-C0C0(0
io" lO~ O)" co"
TfTr^o>^TW
OOOOCOOCO'^-Q
ooomcMiTjcMcnto
n 6 6 «i «o d (b n d
8 00 -
<° s
in m
CO CO
<r> <o
o" o
<£> CO
CO <£>
co" o
o|?33 a
<» {2 c: a> a>
3 O
5 £*!£
8«|
§ a. O cyj _i D
s*J
E
K
5
T> _
.5 2
fr»-
E
3
29
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 6 - File 127-92-10
Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992 Finance Committee
meeting.
Item: Ordinance amending Part III, Municipal Code, by adding
Section 75.1 to require persons filing a statement of
fictitious business name pursuant to California Business
and Professions Code Section 17900 et. seq. to provide proof
of compliance, including payment of all appropriate license
fees, with all applicable sections of Article II of Part III of
the Municipal Code.
Description:
Under the Administrative Code, the City imposes three
types of business registration requirements. All businesses
in San Francisco are required to obtain a business tax
re gistration certificate from the Tax Collector, in order for
the City to enforce collection of business taxes (businesses
with annual gross receipts under $15,000 are not required
to pay a business tax registration fee, but still must obtain
the certificate). In addition, some, but not all, businesses
are required to obtain regulatory permits of various kinds,
such as Health Department permits for restaurants or Fire
Department permits for gas stations, which are issued by
the individual departments. Finally, some, but not all,
businesses are required to obtain business licenses ,
including, for example, licenses for laundries, sightseeing
operations, theatres, automotive repairs shops, and others.
In addition, the Recorder administers the filing and
issuance of fictitious business name statements, which are
required of individuals who adopt a name different than
their own as a name for their business.
The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative
Code to require that individuals who file a statement of
fictitious business name with the Recorder must provide
proof of payment of all appropriate business license fees, or
a waiver of any license requirements, from the Tax
Collector before the fictitious business name statement will
be issued.
The proposed ordinance would not require persons filing a
fictitious business name statement to present proof that
they have obtained the required business tax registration
certificate.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Comments:
1. The proposed ordinance would require all businesses
filing a fictitious business name (FBN) statement to present
to the Recorder either a business license issued by the Tax
Collector or a waiver of the City's business license
requirements. However, Ms. Anita Jin of the Business
License Division of the Tax Collector's Office reports that
not all businesses are required to obtain a business license,
and the Tax Collector currently does not issue waivers to
businesses which are not required to obtain a business
license. Therefore, a waiver of business license
requirements, which some businesses would be required to
obtain under the proposed ordinance, is not available from
the Tax Collector under existing procedures.
2. Under Part III, Article 12B, Section 1003 of the
Administrative Code, all businesses are required to obtain a
business tax registration certificate from the Tax Collector
and pay a business registration fee (although businesses
with annual gross receipts of less than $15,000 are exempt
from the fee). Therefore, a business tax registration
certificate is required to be issued by the Tax Collector to all
businesses in San Francisco. The proposed ordinance
would not require businesses to present evidence that they
have obtained the required business tax registration
certificate.
3. Mr. Sullivan states that it would be highly inadvisable to
require businesses to present evidence that they have
obtained a business license or a waiver of business license
requirements before filing a FBN statement. This is
because 1) not all businesses are required to obtain a
business license, 2) the Tax Collector does not issue waivers
of business licenses to businesses which do not require
licenses, and is not equipped to do so, and 3) entrepreneurs
often file FBN statements before obtaining business
licenses, in order to use the business name to conduct a
series of other activities, such as opening checking accounts,
which must be performed before the business can open. Mr.
Sullivan states that to require entrepreneurs to obtain
business licenses, or a written waiver of business license
requirements, before a FBN statement could be filed would
lead to lengthy delays in the inception of new businesses.
4. According to the City and County Recorder, Mr. Bruce
Jamison, and Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's
Office, the intent of the proposed ordinance was to enhance
compliance with the City's business tax, by requiring all
businesses filing a FBN statement to present evidence that
they have obtained the business tax registration certificate,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
pursuant to Article 12-B of the Administrative Code, rather
than proof of compliance with the City's business license
requirements, pursuant to Article 2 of the Admini strati ve
Code. Mr. Jamison requests that the proposed ordinance be
continued to the call of the Chair to allow for preparation of
an amendment of the whole that would require proof of
compliance with the business tax registration requirements
of Article 12B of the Administrative Code, rather than proof
of compliance with the business license requirements of
Article 2 of the Administrative Code, for businesses filing a
fictitious business name statement with the Recorder.
Recommendation: Continue the proposed ordinance to allow for preparation of
an amendment of the whole, as requested by Mr. Jamison.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 7 -File 101-92-23
Department San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH)
Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating $1.4
million for two capital improvement projects to renovate
Wards 14 and 15 (the SFGH Business Office) and the
Emergency Room/Outpatient Registration areas.
Amount: $1.4 million
Source of Funds: SFGH Capital Reserve
Description: The Mayor's budget for FY 1992-93 included $160,000 for
planning of an SFGH capital project to renovate Wards 14
and 15 at SFGH. SFGH had estimated that the total capital
project would cost an estimated $1.6 million. Subsequently, in
approving the City's budget for FY 1992-93, the Board of
Supervisors restored $1.4 million for this project as a General
Fund Reserve subject to future appropriation by
supplemental appropriation ordinance.
The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide
funding for the renovation of the Business Offices in order to
increase staff efficiency and productivity by improving space
utilization. The Business Offices include Patient Accounting
(Billing, Credit and Collections), Accounts Receivable,
Inpatient Eligibility, Department of Social Services Eligibility
Workers, Revenue Enhancement Units, General Accounting
and Payroll. The areas occupied by these Business Offices
were formerly hospital wards and still contain fixtures such
as dishwasher, steel kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, and shower
stalls. Proposed renovations include the installation of new
lighting fixtures, computer and telephone cable conduits,
handicapped access to restrooms and public areas and two
cashier windows in the Ward 24 patient billing area
(currently patients must walk across the street to another
building to pay their bills). The proposed renovations would
also double the space occupied by the Department of Social
Services Eligibility Workers that process applications for
Medi-Cal.
The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide
funding for the renovation of the outpatient registration,
emergency room waiting and admitting areas to expand the
capacity to register, admit patients and perform financial
interviews and assist with eligibility. The registration unit
interviews and registers an average of over 800 out-patients
daily and admits an average of over 50 patients to the
HOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Comments:
inpatient units daily. The registration and eligibility workers
currently perform their duties in areas that were designed to
provide security but do not provide privacy for confidential
interviews of patients and completion of Medi-Cal
applications. The proposed renovation project would change
the design of the registration area to provide greater
confidentiality for financial interviews. According to SFGH,
these improvements will result in increases in hospital
revenues by increasing the number of patients eligible for
Medi-Cal, increasing the ability to identify Medicare and
other paying patients in the emergency room and improving
the Medi-Cal eligibility efforts in the outpatient clinics.
The SFGH's preliminary cost estimate for these renovation
projects is attached.
1. SFGH reports that determinations have not yet been made
as to what portions of the construction work will be
performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what portions
will be contracted. Therefore, $643,500 for construction work
to the Business Offices (including $505,000 for Open Office
Area Ward 14/15, $16,000 for moving cost, $13,500 for Interim
DSS Unit/Ward 82, $19,000 for asbestos work and $90,000 for
project contingencies) and $496,500 for construction work to
the outpatient registration, emergency room waiting and
admitting areas (including $215,000 for the emergency room,
$216,500 for outpatient registration and admitting areas and
$65,000 for project contingencies) should be reserved pending
determinations regarding use of maintenance staff or outside
contractors, and if outside contractors are to be used,
selection of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status.
2. The Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) has
not endorsed the proposed project but also does not reject it.
According to the CIAC's report on the proposed capital
project, "the CIAC does not object to the passage of the
supplemental appropriation. We would reiterate, however,
that there are a multiplicity of projects of higher priority from
a Citywide point of view which we would prefer to have been
funded."
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance to reserve a total of $1,140,000 for construction
($643,500 for construction work to the Business Offices and
$496,500 for construction work to the outpatient registration,
emergency room waiting and admitting areas) pending
determinations as to what portions of the construction work
will be performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
34
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
portions will be contracted and if outside contractors are to be
used, selection of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status.
2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment
Page 1 of 2
SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL
BUSINESS OFFICE/DSS
DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Design 15%
Construction Inspection/Admin. 4%
SFGH Project Management/Contract 8%
Permit 1 .5%
$135,000
$36,000
$72,000
$13,500
Subtotal: $256,500
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Open Office Area Ward 1 4/1 5:
Electrical & Lighting
Computer Cable
Sheet Vinyl Flooring/Carpet
Painting
Demolition & Patch
Modular Work Stations
Handicap-Accessible Toilets
$60,000
$20,000
$50,000
$50,000
S1 5,000
$21 0,000
$100,000
Subtotal: S505.000
Moving Cost:
SubtoU
S1 6,000
Interim DSS Unit/Ward 82:
Computer Connections
Workstations
Subtot;
S3, 500
SI 0,000
$1 3,500
Asbestos
Abatement
Industrial Hygienist
SubtotJ
S1 5,000
S4,000
S1 9,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
S81 0,000
S90.000
TOTAL:
cc-nn n~ -■
000
36
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY ROOM/OUTPATIENT REGISTRATION
DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Design 15%
Contxuction Inspeciton/Admin 4%
SFGH Project Managment/Contract
Permit 1.5%
$105,000
$28,000
$60,000
$10.500
Subtotal: $203,500
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Emergeny Room
Gyp. 8d. Walls
Acoustical Ceiling
Painting
— Demolition & Patch
Vinyl Flooring
Fire Shutters
Mechanical
Lighting
Electrical
Communications Cabling
Handicap-Accessible Toilets
Work Surfaces/Casework
OPD Registration and Admitting
Gyp. Bd. Walls
Acoustical Ceiling
Painting
Demolition & Patch
Vinyl Flooring
Fire Shutters
Mechanical
Lighting
Eiectrical
Communications Cabling
Handicap-Accessible Toilets
V.'ork Surfaces/Casework
OTAL PROJECT C3ST
'ADJECT COf* ; ; IN ■.
$27,000
$10,000
$15,000
$7,000
$9,000
$10,000
$20,000
$7,000
$12,000
$6,000
$43,000
$49,000
Subtotal: $215,000
$15,000
$6,000
$7,000
$7,000
$11,000
$15,000
$18,000
$12,000
$10,000
$7,000
$48,500
$60,000
Subtotal: S216.500
S535.000
$65,000
TOTAL s 700.000
37
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 8 -File 101-92-24
Department
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description;
San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH)
Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating
$379,000 for a capital improvement project to renovate Ward
86, the AIDS Ward, at SFGH.
$379,000
New Medi-Cal revenue
The AIDS Ward (Ward 86) at SFGH is the outpatient clinic
that specializes in the care of HD7 infected persons. In
addition to primary care the AIDS Ward provides other
outpatient services including ongoing psychiatric care, social
services, acute psychiatric assessment, nutritional
counseling, dermatology services, phlebotomy and acute
drop-in care. The AIDS Ward also receives patients
discharged from the SFGH inpatient AIDS unit.
According to SFGH, the AIDS Ward has experienced
increased levels of overcrowding in recent years resulting in
fire and occupational safety hazards for patients and staff. In
1989 there were approximately 18,000 outpatient visits to the
AIDS Ward, in 1990 approximately 19,600 outpatient visits
and in 1991 approximately 23,600 outpatient visits (excluding
evening clinic visits). When patients were unable to find seats
in the waiting area they overflowed into hallways and
stairwells. Because of a lack of storage areas in the AIDS
Ward, medical supplies are stacked in the hallways. The
AIDS Ward has received fire citations for the unsafe
conditions.
The proposed renovation of the AIDS Ward would increase
the utilization of existing .clinic space by converting the
existing treatment area info two examination rooms with a
medical supplies storage area in one of the examination
rooms, converting an existing office space into a large
treatment area and by making the AIDS Ward fully
wheelchair accessible. SFGH reports that the AIDS Ward
has been cited by the City's Fire Marshal for not meeting Fire
Code Regulations. Specific renovation components include
the following:
Fire code regulations require installation of fire walls and
partitions and a fire alarm system.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Replace all carpeting with linoleum in the chemotherapy
area.
Computer cable will be installed from the basement of the
building to the AIDS Ward in order to allow for on-line
access of the ward to the clinical laboratory.
Install additional sinks.
Medical equipment will be permanently wall mounted
and IV poles and curtains will be installed from the
ceiling.
Additional telephone equipment will be installed.
A small room that was previously used for the storage of
refrigerated blood samples is now vacant and will be
remodeled for use as a staff support room.
The medical records room will be remodeled to improve
access to medical records.
The SFGH's preliminary budget estimate for the proposed
renovation to the ADDS Ward is attached. According to this
preliminary budget the total project cost is $409,000 whereas
the proposed supplemental appropriation is $379,000 or
$30,000 less than the project cost. The $30,000 difference was
included in the SFGH FY 1992-93 budget for initial planning
of the project.
The proposed source of funds is Medi-Cal Disproportionate
Share Revenues from the State pursuant to Senate Bill
(SB)1255. Because of restrictions on the use of SB 1255 funds,
the Department of Public Health has agreed with the State
agency that administers SB 1255 funds to dedicate the
$379,000 in additional Medi-Cal Disproportionate Share
Revenues for renovation of the AIDS Ward.
According to the AIDS Ward project schedule, construction
can be completed in two months.
Comments: 1. SFGH reports that determinations have not yet been made
as to what portions of the construction work will be
performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what portions
will be contracted. Therefore, $292,435 for construction
including $55,400 for Room 607, $66,700 for Room 620, $13,000
for Nursing Stations North and South, $27,200 for Corridor
Life Safety Issues, $19,000 for Elevator Lobby/Reception Area,
$26,500 for Restrooms/Dirty Utility Rooms, $44,300 for
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
39
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Asbestos Abatement and $40,335 for Contingency should be
reserved pending determinations regarding use of
maintenance staff or outside contractors, and if outside
contractors are to be used, selection of the contractors and
their MBE/WBE status.
2. The Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) has
not endorsed the proposed project but also does not reject it.
According to the CIAC's report on the proposed capital
project, "the CIAC does not object to the passage of the
supplemental appropriation. We would reiterate, however,
that there are a multiplicity of projects of higher priority from
a Citywide point of view which we would prefer to have been
funded."
3. SFGH indicates that because of restrictions on the use of SB
1255 funds, the $379,000 in additional Medi-Cal revenues
cannot be used for regular SFGH operating expenses and
must be used for a program related expenditure, such as the
proposed capital improvement project.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance to reserve a total of $292,435 for construction
pending determinations as to what portions of the
construction work will be performed by SFGH maintenance
staff and what portions will be contracted and if outside
contractors are to be used, selection of the contractors and
their MBE/WBE status.
2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation
ordinance as amended.
HOARD OF SUPLKVISQRS
BUDGET ANALYST
40
Attachment
Page 1 of 2
SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL
AIDS OUTPATIENT REMODEL BLDG. 80
DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Design 15% $61,350
Construction Inspection/Admin. 4% $16,360
SFGH Project Management/Contract 8% $32,720
Permit 1.5% $6,135
Subtotal: $116,565
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Room 607:
Fire Wall & Partitions $3,500
Door $1 ,500
Ceiling $3,000
Sheet Vinyl Flooring $6,400
Electrical & Lighting $10,000
Computer Cable $5,000
Install Sinks & Hopper $10,000
Equipment $16,000
Subtotal: $55,400
Room 620:
Fire Wall & Partitions $5,600
Demo storage room wall $1 ,500
Door $3,000
Ceiling $4,200
Sheet Vinyl Flooring $6,400
Electrical & Ughting $13,000
Computer Cable ( $5,000
Install Sinks & Hopper / $10,000
Equipment $18,000
Subtotal: S66.700
41
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL
AIDS OUTPATIENT REMODEL BLDG. 80
Nursing Stations North & South:
Corridor Separation
Roll Down Fire Curtain (North)
$8,000
$5,000
Subtotal: $13,000
Corridor Life Safety Issues:
40 Door Closers @$350 each
Replace 12 Doors @$1100 each
Elevator Lobby/Reception Area:
Corridor Separation
Roll Down Fire Curtain
Restrooms/Dirty Utility Rooms:
Hopper Sink
2 Doors
Upgrade StorageAA/ork Surfaces
Bathroom Accessibility
Asbestos
Abatement
Industrial Hygienist
$14,000
$13.200
Subtotal: $27,200
$12,000
$7,000
Subtotal: $19,000
$9,000
$2,500
$9,000
$6,000
Subtotal: $26,500
$37,000
$7,300
Subtotal: $44,300
TOTAL PROJECT COST
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
TOTAL:
S368.665
$409,000
■
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 9 -File 101 -9 9-9.fi
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH)
Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating
$10,128,907 in new, Medi-Cal revenues (SB 855), and
transferring the new revenues to the DPH for Other Current
Services and a Reserve for DPH Revenue Shortfall.
Amount: $10,128,907
Source of Funds: Increased Medi-Cal revenues
Description: Senate Bill 855 established a Payment Adjustment Program
that provides a mechanism for additional supplemental
payments to the State's Disproportionate share hospitals,
such as SFGH. A disproportionate share hospital is denned
as a hospital with a Medicaid inpatient utilization rate
higher than the State average. Under the Payment
Adjustment Program, the City is required to make an
intergovernmental transfer of funds to the State. The State
obtains matching Federal funds to the intergovernmental
transfer (the intergovernmental transfer is essentially a local
match) and the total of the intergovernmental plus the
matching Federal funds are then distributed back to SFGH as
Medi-Cal revenues based on Medi-Cal patient days of service.
The amount that the City must pay to the State as an
intergovernmental transfer is based on a statutory formula.
The DPH has already paid $38 million to the State for the FY
1992-93 intergovernmental transfer based on the State's
formula and expects to receive $64.7 million back from the
State. Based on an intergovernmental transfer of $38 million
and a return of a total of $64.7 million including the $38
million intergovernmental transfer plus matching Federal
funds of $26.7 million, the City is getting back approximately
$1.70 for each dollar advanced to the State.
The State has revised their allocation of SB 855 Medi-Cal
allocations for FY 1992-93 and requires the City to pay an
additional $8,488,622 to the State for the revised FY 1992-93
intergovernmental transfer. The State will return an
additional $10,128,907 in Medi-Cal revenues to the SFGH,
including the additional $8,488,622 intergovernmental
transfer and $1,640,285 in matching Federal funds. Based on
the total FY 1992-93 payments to the State of $$46,488,622 ($38
million plus $8,488,622) and a return of a total of $74,828,907
($64.7 million plus $10,128,907) in Medi-Cal revenues for KV
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
43
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Comment:
1992-93, the SFGH will receive approximately $1.61 for each
dollar advanced to the State for FY 1992-93.
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would
recognize the additional $10,128,907 in Medi-Cal revenue for
FY 1992-93 and would transfer $8,488,622 of the Medi-Cal
revenue increase to the Other Services budget for DPH to be
used as the source of funds for the required
intergovernmental transfer. The $1,640,285 balance in new
revenue over and above the $8,488,622 intergovernmental
transfer would be set aside in the DPH budget as a Reserve
for DPH Revenue Shortfalls budgetary account subject to
future appropriation when the full $10,128,907 in new
revenue is assured based on sufficient patient days to
generate that amount of Medi-Cal revenue in accordance
with the State's formula for reimbursement.
Ms. Susan Ehrlich of DPH reports that patient days at SFGH
are meeting the SFGH projection for FY 1992-93 and that
SFGH will earn all Medi-Cal revenue allocated to the City by
the State pursuant to SB 855.
Recommendation: Approve the ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
44
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 10 - File 65-92-11
Note: This item was continued at the November 4, 1992 Finance Committee
meeting.
Departments:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessee:
No.ofSq.Ftand
Cost per Month:
% Increase Over
Prior Year:
Term of Lease:
Comments:
Real Estate
San Francisco Clean Water Program
Ordinance authorizing and approving a renewal lease of
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (Southeast
Community Facility, Northwest corner of Phelps Street and
Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco Community College
District to operate a satellite campus of the City College of San
Francisco
1800 Oakdale Avenue, commonly known as the Southeast
Community Center
Space for a skills center consisting of classrooms, a library
and other educational facility support services for the San
Francisco Community College District for use as a satellite
campus of the City College of San Francisco
San Francisco Community College District
$13,104.18 monthly rent for approximately 35,800 sq. ft. or
approximately $0.37 per sq. ft. per month
Annual Revenue: $157,250
None - The Real Estate Department states that because of
budget constraints, the San Francisco Community College
District cannot afford an increase in rent for fiscal year 1992-
93 (the proposed lease does provide for three percent annual
increases in rent beginning 'July 1, 1993).
From date of lease execution through June 30, 1995 (two years
and seven months if lease is finally approved effective
December 1, 1992). Presently, the lease is on a month-to-
month basis.
1. The San Francisco Community College District has
occupied the Southeast Community Center since 1986 under
a five year lease that expired on October 30, 1991 and on a
month-to-month basis since October 31, 1991.
2. On July 1 of each year beginning in 1993 the rental amount
will be increased by three percent.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
45
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
3. A provision of the proposed lease requires the Clean Water
Program to make modifications to the Southeast Community
Center space that is occupied by the City College to meet
disabled access requirements as required by the American
Disabilities Act. The Clean Water Program estimates the
cost of such improvements will total approximately $48,000.
Funding for the improvements will be included in the 1993-94
Clean Water Program budget. The San Francisco
Community College District will not reimburse any of these
costs which are the responsibility of the building owner.
4. The City will provide utility services including gas, water,
electricity, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, parking,
landscaping, and sewer. The San Francisco Community
College District will continue to reimburse the City for 85
percent of the total utility services costs for the whole
building. The 85 percent rate for reimbursement was
negotiated based on the 35,800 square feet of space occupied by
the City College compared to the total area of the Southeast
Community Center of approximately 42,500 square feet
(approximately 85 percent). The Head Start Child Care
Program and the Senior Escort Program occupy the
remaining 6,700 square feet of space at the center. The San
Francisco Community College District reimbursed the City
$12,448 for water and sewage service in fiscal year 1991-92,
according to Mr. Alex Pitcher of the Clean Water Program.
Mr. Pitcher was not able to provide the amount of
reimbursements for electricity or other utilities, as of the
writing of this report. The San Francisco Community
College District is wholly responsible for security costs for the
entire facility.
5. The Southeast Community Center was constructed in 1986
to mitigate the construction of the Southeast Treatment
Plant. The mitigation order issued by the State Water
Resources Control Board Requires that a skills center be
located at the Southeast Community Center. Mr. John Roddy
of the City Attorney's Office states that the mitigation order
requirement that a skills center occupy the facility has been
met by locating the City College of San Francisco satellite
campus at the Southeast Community Center.
6. The Real Estate Department reports that although the
proposed rental amount is below the fair market value of rent
for the area, the San Francisco Community College District
provides a public benefit in accordance with the designated
use for the facility. According to the August 7, 1992 letter
from the Real Estate Department to the Budget Analyst
regarding a new lease for the Head Start Child Care
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
46
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Program at the Southeast Community Center (File 65-92-12),
the fair market value of space at the center is $1.25 per square
foot per month ($15 per year), or $537,000 annually for the
35,800 square feet of space occupied by the San Francisco
Community College District. The proposed annual rent of
$157,250 is $379,750 or approximately 71 percent less than the
fair market value of $537,000. Therefore, approval of the
proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Recommendation: Given that the proposed rental rate for the lease is $379,750 or
approximately 71 percent less than fair market value of
$537,000, the proposed lease renewal for approximately two
years and seven months is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
hoard of gUEEffiaSQBS
BUDGET ANALYST
47
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 11 -File 62-92-3
Department: Recreation and Park Department
Item: Ordinance approving a five-year lease with Frederick Lo for
management and operation of the Coit Tower Facility in San
Francisco, California.
Description: The proposed ordinance would approve a five-year lease to
Frederick Lo for the management and operation of the Coit
Tower Facility including the following seven services:
1. Sell and Collect Admission Fees
2. Operate the Elevator
3. Establish and Operate the Gift Shop
4. Establish and Operate a Mobile Unit Food Stand
(Outdoor
only after June 30, 1993)
5. Establish and Operate an outdoor Viewing Machine
Concession on the Sidewalk of Coit Tower Parking Lot
6. Rental of Space for Special Events
7. Establish and Operate a Tour Guide Concession.
Under the proposed five-year lease agreement, effective when
the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed ordinance,
Frederick Lo would annually pay the City the greater of the
following:
(a) Minimum Rent - sum of $80,226 plus 90 percent of
gross receipts from admission fees
(b) Percentage Rent - based on gross receipts from the
following:
Admission Fees / 90%
Gift Shop r. 20.26%
Food Stand ' 15.26%
Viewing Machine Concessions 50%
Special Event Rentals 40%
Tour Concession 10%
Thus, based on Coit Tower paid admissions in FY 1991-92 of
$561,438, under the proposed lease, Frederick Lo would pay
the City a minimum of $585,520 annually (90 percent of
$561,438 is $505,294 plus the proposed minimum annual
payment of $80,226). In FY 1991-92, the Department collected
a total of $571,438 in revenues from Coit Tower operations
including revenues received from the gift shop operated by
the Friends of the Recreation and Park Department based on
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
48
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Comments:
a minimum of ten percent of gross receipts. Thus, the
minimum payment of proposed lease would guarantee the
Recreation and Park Department approximately $14,082
more than the Department is currently receiving. In
addition, the Department would reduce its costs by
approximately $80,000 to $90,000 annually (See Comment 1
below).
Under the proposed lease, the City would be responsible for
paying gas, electricity and water as well as to repair and
maintain the facility. The lessee would be responsible for
cleaning and upkeep of the facility. Currently, the City is
responsible for the cleaning and upkeep at an approximate
cost of $7,800 annually excluding supplies.
Since December of 1992, Frederick Lo has been running the
Coit Tower Facility under a permit on a month-to-month
lease pending approval of the proposed ordinance by the
Board of Supervisors. Prior to December, 1992, the Recreation
and Park Department operated Coit Tower except for the Gift
Shop which was operated by the Friends of the Recreation
and Park Department. According to Mr. Dennis Chan of the
Recreation and Park Department, in FY 1991-92 when the
City and the Friends of the Recreation and Park Department
operated the Coit Tower facilities, the Department collected
approximately $571,438 in revenues. In FY 1991-92, operation
of the Coit Tower facilities cost the Department
approximately $135,581 in salaries and fringe benefits.
1. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park
Department, the Department is proposing to contract out the
operation of Coit Tower to reduce the Department's
Temporary Salaries. In FY 1992-93, the Department's budget
for Temporary Salaries was reduced by approximately $2
million. The Recreation and Park Department employs three
permanent 3302 Vendors and one 4321 Cashier II to work at
Coit Tower. These four employees would be transferred into
other positions that are being funded through the
Department's Temporary Salaries. The Temporary
Employees who currently fill these other positions would
essentially be "bumped" by the Coit Tower permanent
employees. Mr. Arnold reports that by contracting out Coit
Tower operations, the Department would save an estimated
$80,000 to $90,000 annually in Temporary Salaries. This
$80,000 to $90,000 in Temporary Salary savings would be part
of the $2 million reduction in the Department's FY 1992-93
budget. Ms. Robin Bergstaller of the Recreation and Park
Department reports that the Department does not expect to
lay-off Temporary Employees. Rather, the Department would
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
49
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Recommendation:
not hire part-time employees on an as needed basis as has
been the Department practice historically.
In addition, the Department provides approximately one
hour each day of custodial services to the Coit Tower
facilities. The custodian who provided the custodial services
to Coit Tower would not be laid off because Coit Tower was
only one of many locations the custodian cleaned. According
to Mr. Mike Morlin of the Recreation and Park Department,
the Department would save approximately $50.00 a week
from reduced overtime expenses associated with cleaning
Coit Tower on the week-ends.
2. Mr. Chan reports the proposed lease for the Coit Tower
facilities was competitively bid and advertised in the
Chronicle, Examiner, Independent, Sun Reporter and other
minority newspapers. In addition, Mr. Chan reports that the
Department sent notices to vendors on the Human Rights
Commission list and the lists at the Purchaser's Office.
According to Mr. Chan, eight vendors picked up bid packages
for the proposed lease and two submitted bids. The other bid
received was submitted by Deborah Heller-Israel, and had an
estimated minimum annual guarantee of $36,000 plus 91
percent of annual admission fees or approximately $546,909
annually (based on 1991-92 paid admissions) which is
approximately $38,611 annually lower than Frederick Lo's
estimated minimum annual guarantee of $585,520.
3. Frederick Lo is a City certified MBE.
4. According to Mr. Arnold, the Department anticipates that
revenues generated from the Coit Tower Gift Shop would
increase under the proposed lease by having an experienced,
professional vendor operate the shop rather than the Friends
of the Recreation and Park Department, a non-profit
organization.
5. Mr. Arnold reports that he will be unable to attend the
December 30, 1992 Finance Committee meeting. As a result,
Mr. Arnold requests that the proposed ordinance be
continued for one week.
Continue the proposed ordinance for one week as requested
by the Department.
HOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
50
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 12 -File 62-92-4
Department* Airports Commission
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessee:
No.ofSq.Ft.and
Revenue/Month
Annual Revenue:
Utilities and Janitor
Services:
Term of Lease:
Escalation:
Comments:
Ordinance approving a Boarding Area 'E' Principal
Concession Retail Lease between the Delstar Group and the
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through
the Airports Commission.
San Francisco International Airport, Boarding Area "E"
The proposed lease pertains to five locations at the Airport
for the sale of retail merchandise.
The Delstar Group
3,201 square feet with a minimum rental rate of
approximately $30.11/sq.ftVmonth.
20 percent of gross revenues, with a minimum annual
guarantee of $1,156,482, whichever is higher.
To be paid by lessee.
Five years from the effective date (see Comment 11).
Annual increases in the amount of the minimum annual
guarantee, based on the increases in the Consumer Price
Index.
1. Ms. Judy Watson of the Property Management Division
at the Airport states that four of the five retail locations
included in the proposed lease are currently operated by
DFS West, whose lease with the Airport will expire on
March 31, 1993. The fifth location is being operated on a
month-to-month basis under a holdover provision of an
expired lease with the firm of SFO News.
2. The Airport reports that the Delstar Group submitted the
highest responsive competitive bid for a concession retail
lease involving five retail locations in the North Terminal.
According to Ms. Watson, the Airport advertised for bids in
the San Francisco Examiner, Philippine News, Asian
Week, and Small Business Exchange newspapers.
3. The six bidders, their bid amounts, and the MBEAVHE
status of the firms (based on information provided by the
Human Rights Commission), are as follows:
ROARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
51
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Minimum
Annual Guarantee
Firm Bid Amount MBE/WBE Status
The Delstar Group $1,156,482 none
Kass Management Services 1,072,000 Registered MBE
Host International 1,040,250 none
MBE, Inc. 705,705 none
W.H. Smith Airport Services 700,000 LBE
DFS Group/DFS West 510,000 none
Mr. Richard Norton of the Human Rights Commission
states that the Delstar Group, which is headquartered in
Arizona, is not currently registered with the Human Rights
Commission. However, the Delstar Group is a woman-
owned business and has taken action to become a registered
WBE based on its proposed operations at the Airport,
according to Mr. Norton.
4. Ms. Sandra Crumpler of the Airport states that Airport
concessions are not subject to the requirements of the City's
MBE/WBE ordinance, but are required to comply with
requirements which the Airport establishes to meet the
Airport's MBE/WBE participation goals. The Airport
requires that, under the proposed lease, 20 percent of the
retail concession (based on square feet of retail space), must
be operated by a MBE firm, and 10 percent must be operated
by a WBE firm
5. Ms. Crumpler reports that, since the Delstar Group is a
woman-owned business, it complies with the Airport's
participation goal for WBE's under the proposed lease. In
addition, the Delstar Group will be required to sub-contract
with a MBE firm to comply with the 10 percent participation
goal for MBE's under the proposed lease, according to Ms.
Crumpler. S
6. Under the proposed lease, the Delstar Group would pay
annual rent equal to 20 percent of gross receipts, with a
minimum annual guarantee of $1,156,482, whichever is
greater. Ms. Watson states that for the existing retail
outlets which occupy the 5 locations, DFS West and SFO
News paid the Airport a combined rent in 1991-92 of
$1,554,439. These revenues were based on the minimum
annual guarantee included in the existing leases with DFS
West and SFO News.
7. On an annual basis, the Airport would receive at least the
minimum annual guarantee from the Delstar Group of
BOARD OF STTPKRVTSORS
BUDGET ANALYST
52
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
$1,156,482. The Budget Analyst notes that the $1,156,482
minimum annual guarantee of the proposed lease with the
Delstar Group is $397,957, or 25.6 percent less than the
$1,554,439 minimum annual guarantee under the existing
leases with DFS West and SFO News for the 5 retail
locations. Mr. Robert Rhoades, Director of Property
Management for the Airport, attributes this decrease in the
minimum annual guarantee under the proposed lease to
the fact that bids for the proposed lease were solicited
during a recession, and the bidders have exercised caution
in estimating their profitability. Mr. Rhoades states that
the Delstar Group has performed well at airport locations
in other cities, and he indicates that, over the 5 year term of
the proposed lease, the performance of the Delstar Group is
expected to exceed the performance of the existing
concessionaires.
8. The commodities offered under the proposed lease would
differ from the commodities now offered at two of the five
locations, according to Ms. Watson. The Airport would
require that the Delstar Group offer fashion accessories,
music boxes and collectible items at two locations, in lieu of
personalized clothing and children's items which are
currently offered for sale at these two locations by DFS West,
since the existing concessions have not performed to the
Airport's satisfaction. The remaining three locations
currently offer newspapers, gifts, and sundries, and would
continue to do so under the proposed lease.
9. Ms. Watson states that the proposed lease provides for
annual rental increases proportional to the annual
increase in the Consumer Price Index.
10. According to Ms. Watson, construction to refurbish the
premises would begin April 1, 1993. Ms. Watson states that
the estimated cost of the construction will not be known
until approximately February 1993 when the Delstar Group
submits construction plans for approval by the Airports
Commission. However, under the proposed lease, the
Delstar Group would be responsible for 100 percent of the
costs of construction, according to Ms. Watson.
11. The effective date of the proposed lease would be the date
that construction is completed and the concession is fully
operational, or 120 days following approval of the proposed
lease by the Board of Supervisors, whichever occurs first.
Beginning on the effective date, the Delstar Group would he
required to pay 20 percent of gross receipts or the minimum
annual guarantee of $1,156,482, whichever is greater.
HOARD OF SI IPEKVISOKS
BUDGET ANALYST
53
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
The retail outlets would continue to operate in a limited
capacity during the construction work, according to Ms.
Watson. For as long as construction is in progress during
the first 120 days following approval of the proposed
ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, the Delstar Group
would be required to pay 20 percent of total gross receipts,
based on any retail operations during the construction
period. However, the minimum annual guarantee of
$1,156,482 under the proposed lease would not apply during
the construction period.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Vi
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 13 - File 65-92-20
Department: Port of San Francisco
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft and
Cost per Month:
Annual Cost:
Term of Lease:
Date of Lease
Tei-mination*
Description:
The proposed ordinance would approve termination of the
lease agreement between Continental Grain Company and
the City and County of San Francisco
Pier 90
The space leased at Pier 90 is used as a grain loading and
unloading facility.
Continental Grain Corporation
$24,071 per month for approximately 148,000 square feet
(approximately $0,163 per square foot per month).
$288,852 payable by Continental Grain Corporation to the
Port.
Sixty year lease commencing November 22, 1967 and ending
November 22, 2027.
The first day after all of the following have occurred:
a) Passage of a resolution by the San Francisco Port
Commission terminating the lease. Such a resolution was
approved by the Port Commission on October 14, 1992.
b) Passage of this proposed ordinance by the Board of
Supervisors.
c) The determination of the effective date of the lease
termination by the FederaLMaritime Commission or a ruling
by the Commission that such a determination is not
necessary.
d) Continental Grain Company has removed certain
equipment from the Pier 90 facility and made certain
electrical repairs.
The Port of San Francisco and Continental Grain Company
propose to terminate the 60 year lease agreement that
commenced November 21, 1967 and was scheduled to
terminate November 22, 2027. The proposed termination date
would be one day after the conditions listed above are met. As
a condition of termination, Continental Grain Company
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
55
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
would have to remove various equipment from Pier 90,
including all buckets and barrels, all 55-gallon drums, all
automobiles and batteries, and all refuse and garbage.
Additionally, Continental Grain Company agrees to make
approximately $9,000 worth of repairs to Pier 90 electrical
systems.
Comments: 1. Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port reports that the decision
to terminate the lease with Continental Grain Company has
been made for a number of reasons.
a) The current lease requires the City to dredge the canal
used by Continental Grain Company at Pier 90. However,
since Continental Grain Company has not used the facility
for over four years, no dredging has been performed recently.
Since the Port is limited in the number of cubic yards it can
dredge in San Francisco Bay, the Port believes that there are
higher priority areas for dredging. The estimated cost of the
dredging is $100,000 annually.
b) The Port is required to maintain certain standards for the
facilities at Pier 90 but, again, because Continental Grain
Company has not used the facility, this maintenance has not
been performed recently. Due to damage to the grain elevator
from the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the estimate for repairing
the grain elevator and making other maintenance repairs
would be $1.6 million.
c) Since the lease became effective with Continental Grain
Company in 1967 there have been changes in Federal air
quality regulations. If Continental Grain Company were to
actively use the facility at Pier 90, the Port would be required
to make significant changes in the facility to significantly
reduce the dust that is generated by the storage and transfer
of grain. The Port has estimated that the cost of this project
would be $15 million. /
2. The total cost of the maintenance repairs and annual
dredging would be $20 million ($15 million for the air quality
changes, $1.6 million for maintenance and structural
repairs and $3.4 million for dredging for the remaining 34
years of the lease). The total rental payments which the Port
would receive over the remaining 34 years of the lease, with a
2.5 percent increase annually, would be approximately $16.5
million. Therefore, the Port has decided it would be more
cost-effective to terminate the lease at this point.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
56
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
3. Ms. Sanchez reports that the Port currently has no specific
planned use for the space being vacated at Pier 90 but is
currently considering a number of possibilities for short-term
maritime use of the facility.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
HOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
57
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 14 -File 97-92-70
Department Department of Public Health (DPH)
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Ordinance amending the City and County of San Francisco's
Administrative Code by adding Section 19A.32 to permit the
Department of Public Health (DPH) to enter into
indemnification agreements with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission enabling the DPH to participate
in the Homeless Outreach study at Transbay Transit
Terminal.
The proposed ordinance would permit the DPH to enter into
indemnification agreements with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in order to enable the DPH to
participate in the Outreach to Homeless Persons in Transit
Facilities program. In November of 1991, the Board of
Supervisors authorized DPH to accept and expend a three
year grant in the amount of $550,000 from the U.S.
Department of Transportation through the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (File 146-91-57.1). This grant has
provided funding for DPH's Outreach to Homeless Persons in
Transit Facilities program. This program provides case
management, outreach and linkages with health, mental
health, substance abuse treatment, employment/training,
housing, education, transportation, nutrition services and
other necessary community support services to homeless
persons who take shelter in transit facilities such as the
Transbay Terminal. DPH contracts with Travelers Aid of San
Francisco, a non-profit agency, to provide these direct
outreach services.
The proposed ordinance would allow the DPH to enter into an
agreement with MTC to indemnify and hold MTC harmless
from and against all claims, injury, suits, demands, etc.
incurred as a result of the City's or the City's contractor's
actions. As previously noted, the City receives the grant
funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation through
the MTC.
1. Mr. Fred Milligan of the DPH advises that the DPH enters
into similar indemnification agreements with its
contractors, such as Travelers Aid of San Francisco to protect
the City from being held liable for the actions of another
organization. The MTC is requesting such protection for
itself from the Outreach to Homeless Persons in Transit
Facilities program.
BOARD OF SIH»KK\XSQHS
BUDGET ANALYST
58
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
2. The City has a similar indemnification agreement with
Travelers Aid of San Francisco where the City is held
harmless from the actions of Travelers Aid of San Francisco.
As previously noted, Travelers Aid of San Francisco is
providing the majority of the services under the Outreach to
Homeless Persons in Transit Facilities program. Thus, the
proposed ordinance would not have a fiscal impact on the
City.
Recommendation: The proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
59
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Item 15 -File 101-99-91
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description;
Department of Social Services (DSS)
Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating
$524,636 for permanent salaries and related mandatory
fringe benefits and day care assistance.
$524,636
Miscellaneous Federal and State Subventions
The State Department of Social Services has allocated State
and Federal revenues to the City to implement court-ordered
childcare payments for the Non-GAIN Employment and
Training Program (NET). The proposed ordinance would
appropriate the funds for the mandated childcare payments
and fund a Social Worker position to administer the
program.
Under the terms of the court case, Miller vs. McMahon,
counties are required to provide for NET childcare payments
while AFDC parents attend NET programs. DSS began
receiving State and Federal revenues and began making
these childcare payments in September, 1992. DSS has
assigned an existing GAIN Social Worker to administer the
program which has been funded with the proposed Federal
and State funds since September, 1992. The proposed
supplemental appropriation would provide NET childcare
payments through the end of the fiscal year and provide
funding for an additional Social Worker to administer the
program.
The Department has TXed (temporary exchange) an existing
vacant Hearing Officer position to create the requested Social
Worker position.
t
Under the NET childcare program, the NET recipient must
enroll in a job training program and the NET recipient would
find their own childcare provider. The childcare provider
invoices the City for services provided to the NET recipient.
DSS has established a childcare rate structure which DSS
will reimburse the childcare provider. Currently, DSS will
reimburse a childcare provider from $1.71 per hour to $6.48
per hour depending on the age of the children and the type of
childcare provided such as in-home child care or child care
centers. The childcare provider is only paid for those hours
spent with the NET recipient's child while the NKT recipient
is attending job training courses.
BOARD OF SffEBMSQBS
BUDGET ANALYST
60
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Budget: Permanent Salaries
2912 Sr. Social Worker (10 months funding) $30,551
Fringe Benefits 7,708
DSS Administration 15,783
Childcare Services 486.377
Total $540,419
Comments: 1. As reflected in the proposed budget above and as certified by
the Controller, DSS would receive $540,419 instead of $524,636
as the proposed ordinance currently reads. Thus, the proposed
ordinance should be amended to appropriate $540,419 instead
of $524,636.
2. As previously noted, the Department of Social Services began
receiving State and Federal monies and began childcare
payments and paving the salary of the Sr. Social Worker in
September, 1992. Therefore, the proposed ordinance should be
amended to appropriate the $540,419 retroactively.
3. The $15,783 budgeted for DSS administrative expenses would
reduce the City's General Fund contribution to DSS's
administrative costs.
4. Ms. Sally Kipper of DSS reports that this is the first time
DSS has provided NET childcare payments. As such, Ms.
Ripper advises that DSS is unsure how much DSS will actually
require in FY 1992-93 for NET childcare payments. DSS
currently has 150 people in the NET program. However, Ms.
Kipper believes this number will increase through the fiscal
year. The proposed $540,419 is the amount the State is
subvening to the City for these services. However, Ms. Kipper
advises that the State will only pay the City for expenses
incurred. Therefore, if the City spends less than $540,419 for
the NET childcare program,' the City will receive less than
$540,419 from the State. As' previously noted, the amount of
childcare required by the NET recipients depends on the number
of hours the recipient is enrolled in job training courses.
5. The proposed TX of an existing Hearing Officer position to
create a Social Worker position is only for FY 1992-93. The
Department will substitute the Hearing Officer position for the
proposed Social Worker position in the Department's FY 1993-
94 budget.
6. Ms. Kipper also advises that the source of State and Federal
funding for the NET childcare program in FY 1993-94 has not
been established.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
61
Memo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Recommendation: Amend the proposed ordinance to:
1. Appropriate $540,419 instead of $524,636 as the proposed
ordinance currently reads.
2. Appropriate the $540,419 retroactively.
Approve the proposed ordinance as amended.
HOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
ivlemo to Finance Committee
December 30, 1992
Items 16 and 17 - Files 101-92-22 «nd 102-92-4
Departments:
Items:
Amount:
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
Public Administrator/Guardian
Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-22)
appropriating $206,729, for various purposes and for the
creation of four positions.
Ordinance amending the Annual Salary Ordinance for 1992-
93 (File 102-92-4) to reflect the addition of four positions in the
Office of the Public Administrator/Guardian.
$206,729
Source of Funds: General Fund
Description- The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) proposes
establishing a County Veterans Service Office as a function of
the Public Administrator/Guardian, which currently
provides some services to veterans through its
Conservatorship, Rep-Payee and Administrative units. The
proposed County Veterans Service Office would serve an
estimated 76,490 veterans residing in San Francisco. This
estimate was provided by the California Department of
Veterans Affairs Services. Services would include obtaining
veterans benefits for veterans and advocating for increased
benefits for veterans already receiving benefits. Although 55
of California's 58 counties have such an office, San Francisco
does not. The effort to establish such an office has resulted
from the planned relocation of State and Federal Veterans
Affairs offices from 
TVNews
OpenLibrary